Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1871 in the Record.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 539, I call up the bill (H.R. 1871) to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I hold in my hand a copy of the motion to recommit. I will read from line 1. It says: Section 3: Prohibiting cuts in education, health, and safety protections. I said something that generally speaking here on this floor we agree on, but it makes the case of why this bill is so necessary. Because this bill has nothing to do with cuts in any account, no cuts in education, no cuts in health, no cuts in safety protections. This bill does one thing and one thing only, and that is to say, let's spend next year what we spent this year, unless someone makes the case to do more. I thought the gentlewoman from Illinois made a powerful case for why it is important to pay close attention to these accounts and focus the dollars on those accounts that we can do the most good. But to solve this misunderstanding that there are cuts in baseline budgeting, to solve this misunderstanding that prevails across the conversations across America, let's support H.R. 1871. I reject this motion to recommit. I support the underlying bill, Madam Speaker, and I ask that we can bring fairness and transparency to the budget again for the first time since 1974. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend from California that I do not have any further speakers remaining. I am prepared to close.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I brought down a chart that takes us from 2006 out to 2044. For almost everyone here in the Chamber, that it going to get into the meaty part of our lifetime. What it shows with the green line, Madam Speaker, is what revenues have been in this country, historic revenues going backward and projected going forward, not in dollar values but as a percent of our economy. What it shows us is that revenues going forward will continue to be historically normal at just under 20 percent of GDP. But the red line, Madam Speaker, represents projected spending. This is the projected spending if we do nothing at all. We don't need to show up for work another day in this Chamber. We don't need to come down here and pass one new law, spend one more dollar. The spending on autopilot, Madam Speaker, is represented by the red line. You see it rising off the top of the graph. Spending is the problem. For decades, since 1974 and the passage of the Congressional Budget Act, there has been an assumption that spending was going to rise each and every year. My friends on the Democratic side of the aisle called it inflation. Inflation existed before the Congressional Budget Act was passed. It is going to exist after the Congressional Budget Act is modified or repealed. Inflation is an economic certainty, and that is not the topic of discussion today. The topic of discussion today is who makes decisions when it comes to America's budgeting. If spending is the problem, if it is spending that is rising faster than revenues, if it is spending that has changed over the past decade, who should make those determinations? Here is the thing, Madam Speaker. I will go back to that Washington math that I talked about coming from townhall meetings, because I know everyone here has been a part of that. I know everyone here has had that hand go up when we talk about cutting spending and they say: Is that a real cut or is that a Washington cut? When you say ``cutting spending,'' Rob, do you mean cutting spending or do you mean that you are only going to increase it by $10 and the projection was it is was going to go up by $20? Only here is increasing spending by $10 considered a cut. There is no family in America that considers that a cut. Think about your budget back home, Madam Speaker, whatever that is. I remember buying milk for $1.99 a gallon. I am a big milk drinker. Skim is my favorite. But $1.99 I was comfortable paying. Today I am prepared to pay more--I am. There has been inflation. I am prepared to pay $4 a gallon for a gallon of milk. I didn't assume that I was going to drink the same amount of milk every day going forward. In fact, I confess, I found powdered milk, Madam Speaker. It was on the discount shelf at Giant. I got two gallons of powdered milk for $2.25 total. That is $1.12 a gallon for that powdered milk. I am not paying $4 a gallon. I am paying $1.12 because I have to make choices. American families don't get unlimited dollars to spend. Though, the Federal Government pretends like it does. We are borrowing from future generations every time we make a decision. So this bill says one thing and one thing only: Who makes decisions for America? Is it going to be the Congressional Budget Office? Is it going to be a statutory baseline, or is it going to be the men and women in this room who put themselves up for election every 2 years? Madam Speaker, for me, the answer is clear. I have got a Constitution that lays it out fairly clearly here in my pocket. I don't think I need to read it to folks here to get them to understand because I think we all share that view. We share the view that difficult decisions are not supposed to be made by unelected bureaucrats in a back room. Difficult decisions are supposed to be made by us, right here in this Chamber. If you have a project back home in your district, if you see a national priority, and you want to spend a penny more than we spent last year, come to the floor of the House and make your case. Make your case. For Pete's sake, I am a huge supporter of Federal research. The work that goes on at the CDC down in Atlanta, the work that goes on in Maryland at NIH, it is amazing. Nobody else is going to do that if we don't come together and do it here in this body. I have got to tell you something. I don't need a baseline. I don't need a bureaucrat. I don't need any Washington math to come and make the case that we ought to spend more at NIH next year than we did last year. Why do I not need them? Because I believe it. Because my constituents elected me to stand up for Federal research. We came here to make these tough decisions. Back in the day, before the class of 2010, before the class of 2012-- back in the day, there is good reason to assume that Federal spending was going to go up every year because every year since the end of the Korean war that is exactly what happened. I watched it. Every year, we spent more than we did in the last. Something has changed in this town, Madam Speaker, and I think the thing that has changed in this town are the people that the folks back home are sending to this town. I think the town's actually the same. I think the folks back home are sending new folks, folks like the gentleman from California, folks like the gentleman from North Carolina. Sending people to town with the direction of not trading away their children's future because they are afraid to make tough decisions today. So, what does that mean? That means in the 4 years I have been in this institution, Madam Speaker, we have spent less money in these discretionary accounts that this bill would affect every single year than we did the one before. Think about that. In the absence of this legislation that I am proposing, we are going to go assume that spending goes up every year, but the reality that my friends on the other side of the aisle are talking about, the reality of inflation, the reality of congressional decisionmaking, the reality of our budget is that that spending has gone down, not just from 2010 to 2011, though it did; not just again from 2011 to 2012, though it did; not just again from 2012 to 2013, though it did; and not just again from 2013 to 2014, but it did that too. Four years in a row we spent less the following year than we did the year before. When are we going to get back to that 2010 level of spending? Is it going to be next year? No, it is not. Is it going to be the year after that? No, not by the budgets that we will be passing on the floor here this week. What about the year after? No, not then either. So, the opponents of this legislation suggest that we should create a process in Federal law that assumes that spending goes up every single year, and yet the reality of this institution, as it exists today, not as it existed 10 years ago, not as it existed 20 years ago, not as it existed in 1974, when this legislation was first enacted, but as it exists today, is the responsible men and women in this Chamber who are prioritizing taxpayer dollars in such a way that for the entire 10-year window we won't spend a penny more than we did on day one. That is the reality. Could we spend more each and every year? Of course we could. Could we borrow more and more from our children and grandchildren and ask them to pay it back tomorrow with interest? Of course we could. Did our constituents elect us to come here and make difficult, difficult, difficult discussions? They did. I was in the Rules Committee last night, Madam Speaker. My colleague from Massachusetts said, Some of these decisions have real consequences for folks back home. I disagree. I think every decision has real consequences for folks back home. Every single one. This legislation simply asks that before we spend another penny from folks back home that we come to the floor of this House, to the committee chambers around this institution, and make the case for why it is worth doing. I challenge you to look in the eyes of young people whose future we are mortgaging and suggest that they deserve anything less. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You couldn't tell it from the acrimony that has been expressed over the last hour, but this is a good day. There are so many opportunities we have to come to this House and be disappointed with the bills that are here before us. Why? Because we have different ideas, we have different ideas. My constituency, different from the constituencies of so many of my other colleagues, I don't question that they do their best to serve their constituencies, but in serving their voters, they harm mine and sometimes vice versa. Today, that is not the question. We don't have a choice between the lesser of two evils. We don't have a choice against my way or their way. We have a rule that allows for absolutely every Member of this Congress to write their own budget. Think about that, Madam Speaker. We are talking about the budget of the United States of America, $3.5 trillion. Now, everybody doesn't write their own budget. It turns out we have more in common than we have that divides us around this institution, Madam Speaker. We have six budgets that we are going to be voting on. That is every single budget that was submitted, but it is only six budgets. One came out of the House Budget Committee, one came out of the Republican Study Committee, one came out of the Congressional Black Caucus, one came from the Progressive Caucus, one came from the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, and one came from Mr. Mulvaney representing the President's budget. By golly, Madam Speaker, if you can't find something that you believe in, in that continuum of budgets, you are not looking hard enough. Here is the thing: budgets are about choices; budgets are about priorities. The budgets of previous Congresses and previous Presidents have run up a debt the size of which servicing, even at these lowest teaser interest rates in American history, will suck out 18 months of productivity over the next 10 years. I do not question my friend's commitment to the SNAP program, but understand that decisions of the past, paying the interest alone, require the SNAP program be closed completely for 18 months. I do not question my friend's commitment to national security, but the budgets and the priorities of past Congresses have borrowed us into such a state that paying interest alone would require us to close our military for 18 months over the next 10 years. We could not agree more that this budget week is about choices and priorities, and I tell you the choices and priorities of past Congresses and past Presidents are trading away hope for the next generation of Americans. They are trading away opportunities to serve Americans who need to be served today. They are trading away security that folks should be able to have in a land as great as America; but because of decisions that this body, the Senate, and the White House have made over the past decades, that security is no more. Not the budget-passed budget, Madam Speaker, the Budget Committee budget brings us to balance. We will begin to pay down that debt. We will reclaim those opportunities for those future generations. Don't we owe it to them, Madam Speaker, not to advance ourselves at their expense? I think I know what the answer to that question is. We are going to be debating it over the next 3 days here on the House floor, and I hope my colleagues will agree with me, at the end of that process, that we owe it to them to do better today.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I advise my friend from Massachusetts that we have no further speakers remaining, if he is prepared to close.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the secretary of the Republican Conference.

Mr. WOODALL. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), a former sheriff, a member of the class of 2010, and a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of both the Rules Committee and the House Budget Committee. (Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, there are often reasons to come to this floor and instruct the Rules Committee about how the Rules Committee could do better. We do the very best we can, but we accept constructive criticism from all comers. The rule that is before us today is an example of what has gone right, not what has gone wrong. The rule that is before us today makes in order every single budget that was offered to the Rules Committee. Now, I don't dispute that there are lots of different agendas that are being pursued here on the floor at this time; but for the budget agenda, for the openness agenda, for the full debate agenda, we have a rule before us that has made in order every single substitute offered in the Rules Committee, which happens to be five substitutes in addition to the base bill, but had there been more, we would have made more in order. Again, there are lots of things that we can come to the floor of the House and disagree on, but this rule, to bring those disagreeing budgets to the floor, should be a point of great pride for both sides of the aisle. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I seek time for debate.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I do not yield for that purpose. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to say to my friend from Massachusetts, I believe we share many of the same priorities. But because of past Congresses, because of past administrations, because of past decisions that have been made in this Chamber, we are on track to spend $6 trillion on interest over the next 10 years. Madam Speaker, that is opportunity to fulfill every single one of those goals my friend from Massachusetts laid out that is frittered away by the borrow-and-spend behaviors of the past. There is no disagreement in this Chamber about the commitment to a hand-up. The disagreement is about how much further out of reach we put opportunity and success by trading away future opportunities for spending today. I have great respect and admiration for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have said yes, let's do raise taxes by $5 trillion. Yes, let's do reset our priorities. Let's actually describe a pathway to a balanced budget. It is not an easy pathway to get to, but it matters. It doesn't matter because it's a number, Madam Speaker. It matters because every year we don't balance the budget we steal opportunities from our children, and that is undeniable. The debate is, Do the investments today outweigh those stolen opportunities from tomorrow? Or do the savings today that ensure that opportunity for tomorrow represent the best course of success that we can provide, again, for our children and grandchildren, about whom there is no disagreement about our strong and steadfast commitment? Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, it is budget week. I have been trying to contain my smile all week long. I have the great pleasure of sitting on both the Budget Committee and the Rules Committee here in this House. The rule that we have before us today, House Resolution 544, does candidly what I think my friend from Massachusetts and I came here to do, and that is to have an open debate on the floor of the House about absolutely everyone's ideas. I want to tell you what that means, Madam Speaker, because we sit on the Rules Committee, my friend from Massachusetts and I, and part of that responsibility is deciding whose voice gets heard and whose doesn't. It is a very solemn responsibility, one that neither of us takes lightly. I believe we would both say that whenever possible we should err on the side of having more voices instead of less. What we have today, Madam Speaker, is a rule that provides for absolutely every budget alternative written, drafted, and presented in this House, every one. I want you to think about that, Madam Speaker, because this ought to be a place where we debate ideas. This ought to be a place where we talk about what tomorrow looks like, how can we make tomorrow better than today. And on this day, we will be voting on a rule that will make every single alternative idea available for robust debate on the floor of this House. Now, the underlying bill is the bill that came out of the Budget Committee. Again, Madam Speaker, in full disclosure, I am a member of that Budget Committee. I am proud of the work that that committee put out. Some folks call it the Paul Ryan budget. I take umbrage at that. I sit on that committee. I work shoulder to shoulder with Paul. I am going to call it the Budget Committee budget. I hope at the end of this budget week it will be the House-passed budget, because I think it reflects the priorities of this institution, and I think it reflects the priorities of the American people. If it does not reflect the priorities of any Member in this Chamber, they will have alternatives to vote on. One of those alternatives is written and drafted by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), that substitute amendment made in order today. The Congressional Black Caucus, Madam Speaker, comes together to put together a list of priorities, a full substitute budget, has done that for a number of years, has done that again this year. This rule makes that Congressional Black Caucus substitute in order for a vote. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, Madam Speaker, they have presented a budget. Now, their budget is one that raises taxes by $5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is not going to be one that I support here on the floor of the House, but it is absolutely a legitimate list of priorities, as I talked about earlier, priorities that affect the young people of this Nation. We are going to get a vote on that budget here on the floor of this House. The Republican Study Committee, Madam Speaker, of which I am also a member, a proud drafter of that budget document, that vote, espousing the absolute fastest path to balance that we will be hearing in this institution during budget week, Madam Speaker, will get a vote on the floor of this House. Finally, a budget presented by Representative Mulvaney of South Carolina but intended to replicate the budget written by the President of the United States of America. It is a funny thing in constitutional government. Of course we have article I, legislative branch; article II, executive branch. Certainly, we have different responsibilities, but I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who would say the President hasn't invested an incredible amount of time and energy presenting his budget. It wasn't here on time, but it did arrive here. It is a complete budget, and it deserves a hearing. No one on the Democrat side of the aisle picked up that budget to present it until Representative Mulvaney did. Again, I think that is part of the robust debate that we must have. All together, we are going to have 4 hours of debate on these budget alternatives. That is in addition to all the regular order that has already gone on in committee, in addition to the hours that we have invested in the Rules Committee already, 4 hours here on the floor of this House. Why is that important, Madam Speaker? Because I think what I will hear on both sides of the aisle is that these budgets represent a statement of values. Who are you going to take the money from? Who are you going to spend the money on? How are you going to invest in the future? How are you going to prevent the future from being eroded by payments on debt after debt, after debt, after debt? These are the discussions that we are going to have. Just 10 years ago, Madam Speaker, the public debt in this country was $7.3 trillion. Today, it is $17.5 trillion--all of the debt that we have racked up in the history of this country through 2004 more than doubled in just the last 10 years. Madam Speaker, there may be folks in this Chamber who say that is a debt worth making, that the investments that we are creating by borrowing this money from our children and spending it on the generations today, that that is worth doing. I say no. I say our obligation to our children tomorrow, to our grandchildren tomorrow is not to advance ourselves at their expense. I think our obligation is to pay down that debt, but that is a legitimate discussion that we are going to have over the next several days. The $10 trillion on the Nation's credit card in just the past 10 years, Madam Speaker, let there be no doubt that that is the gravity of the conversation that we are having today. I remember back in 2012, Madam Speaker, President Obama said in an interview with ABC News: ``We don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next 10 years, it's going to be in a sustainable place.'' In 2012, the President predicting that for the next 10 years the crisis won't come, that the crisis will be out beyond year 10. Madam Speaker, he may be right, but that was 2 years ago, and there are only two bills, two budgets that we have before us this budget week that even balance in that 10-year window. This is a debate worthy of this Chamber; this is a debate worthy of America. And I hope that by the end of budget week, Madam Speaker, by the time we take our vote on final passage, irrespective of which substitute has passed or whether the House-passed or committee-passed budget remains, that we have a document that represents not just this institution's values but that represents our constituents' values, that represents American values, that is true to the obligation that we all have to protect the opportunities of the generations of tomorrow. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 544 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor today, actually, with three of my constituents from Lawrenceville--Keeran and Hailey and Ashley--because this is budget week. This is when we decide what our priorities are, and there is not going to be a man or a woman in this Chamber who does not believe that what we do, we do for this next generation of Americans. The question will be: What do we do? The rule that we are going to take up here this afternoon is going to make every single substitute amendment offered in this Chamber available for a vote on this floor, so that America can see what our priorities are and can choose among them. Madam Speaker, this is the very best of our Republic that will be on display this week, budget week, and I am just pleased and honored to be a part of it.