Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 487 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, you have heard me say it before, it makes me so happy to be a member of the Rules Committee because our entire resolution gets read down here. The entire Rules resolution gets read, and by golly, Mr. Speaker, if you are not proud of what you are doing in your committee, you better not sign up for a committee where every word of the work that you do gets read each and every time, but I am proud of the work we are doing in the Rules Committee. The rule that we have on the floor today, Mr. Speaker, is going to make two bills in order. Both, I would argue, are incredibly important for providing not just transparency to what goes on here in Washington but also to ensure that the people's voice continues to be heard in Washington. House Resolution 487, this rule, is a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3865. That is the Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act, Mr. Speaker. That is in response to what now every American understands to be the 501(c)(4) scandal, for lack of a better word; that for the first time in my lifetime, there are allegations that the IRS is targeting folks on the basis of their political beliefs for whether or not they are able to have their organization certified as a tax-exempt organization. That is not just a concern of groups on one side of the aisle or the other, Mr. Speaker, that is a concern of folks across the spectrum, and I would argue it is a concern for all Americans who believe that having their voice heard is important. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2804, the All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act. Mr. Speaker, in that structured rule, we made in order 11 amendments. We had two Members come by and testify on behalf of their amendments last night in the Rules Committee. We made both of those amendments in order. In addition, we made four Republican amendments and five other Democratic amendments in order; so for a total of 11 amendments, four Republican amendments and seven Democratic amendments were made in order on that underlying bill. As is customary, it provides the minority with a motion to recommit on both bills. Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Government Reform Committee. We just had a Government Reform Committee bill pass here on the floor of the House, and we have another one here today. It aims for transparency. There is just no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that we have replaced taxation in this country with regulation. Rarely does someone come down and say, ``I want to tax an industry.'' What they will come down and say is, ``I want to regulate an industry.'' In fact, in my great State of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, we are regulating jobs right out of existence. We don't have to tax them out of existence. We don't have to outlaw an industry. We just regulate it out of existence. Perhaps there are some industries that need to be regulated out of existence, and we should have that full and open debate on the floor of the House, but what is absolutely certain is that the American people need to be able to understand the power of the regulatory process, and the impact that it has on jobs and economic development in their community. Today in statute, Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement that the administration twice a year publish a notice of all of those regulations that are being considered and what their impact is anticipated to be, but we have had instances, as recently as 2012, Mr. Speaker, where the administration just ignored that statute altogether. Now understand, the requirement is that you must inform the American people twice a year, just twice a year, about the regulations that are coming through the pipeline that will impact them, their families, and their businesses, and yet, that has been ignored. There has been no ability for folks to understand the magnitude of those regulations. So we came back in this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and said, listen, not only should you be doing that, you should probably be doing it once a month. If you have seen the Federal Register, Mr. Speaker, it is thick. It comes out every day of the week. It captures all of the new rules and regulations that are coming out. They are coming out like water out of a spigot. They are tough to keep track of. So this bill says let's do it not twice a year, let's do it once a month. Let's make sure that the American people understand in a volume that they can see and read once a month what those new rules and regulations are, and, if an agency chooses to ignore that requirement, that proposed rule and regulation will not go into effect such that the American people will get six months of notice about what it is that is going on. I will give a good example, Mr. Speaker. It goes to the second bill we are considering, the Stop Political Targeting bill that is on the floor here today. There is a public comment period that is on right now. I don't know if most folks in America know that. I know everybody understands the IRS targeting scandal. I don't know if they know that the administration is involved in a rulemaking right now. The investigation is still ongoing into the IRS. The extent of the abuse is not yet understood at the IRS. The committees are continuing to work through that process, as the law requires, and yet the administration has released a rule that says we think we know how to fix this, even though the investigation is not done yet; this is what we want to do, and the public comment period ends tomorrow. The public comment period ends tomorrow. Now, folks can go to www.regulations.gov. They can still go and file their comment if they believe that the people's voice being heard is important, but think about that, Mr. Speaker. A scandal that everyone in America understands, a scandal that I believe is offensive to absolutely everyone in America because it doesn't matter which party you are in, you shouldn't target folks who disagree with you; we should absolutely have an full and open debate and let the best ideas win. Yet the administration has proposed a solution to a problem that is not yet fully understood, and the opportunity for the American people to comment on it ends tomorrow. I don't think folks know that back home, Mr. Speaker. This transparency bill we have on the floor today intends to address that, not just for this regulation, but for all future regulations, and the Stop Political Targeting bill that we have on the floor today says this and this alone: it says since we don't fully understand what is going on, and since we know with certainty that the IRS has breached the public's trust, not the entire IRS but just this one scandal here in the 501(c)(4) operations, since we know with certainty that the public's trust has been diminished, let's not have the administration, in the absence of a full understanding by the Congress, the absence of full comment by the American people, let's not have the administration completely re-regulate that area. Rather, let's put this off, not forever, Mr. Speaker, because we all agree that work needs to be done, but for 1 year and 1 year only so that the Congress can have a full understanding and the American people can have a full accounting of what it was that led to citizens' voices being silenced by the Internal Revenue Service in their applications for 501(c)(4) status. Those are the two bills we have on the floor today, Mr. Speaker. Again, all of the germane amendments that were offered, and candidly, there were no germane amendments that were offered to the Stop Political Targeting Act, so that is a closed rule with just the one motion to recommit, and 11 amendments made in order for the government transparency bill on the floor today, only four Republican amendments, seven Democratic amendments, so we can have a full and open debate. I am very proud of this rule, Mr. Speaker. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, you have heard a lot of heartfelt sentiments from my friends here on the floor of the House today. Unfortunately, what you haven't heard is what we are going to do together to ensure that the heartfelt sentiments of every single citizen of these United States can be heard here in Washington. I fear my friend from Colorado is right. I don't say that lightly. He has a lot of good ideas, and I hope to collaborate with him on even more. I fear he is right that this is a single-Chamber solution. I fear that only the United States House of Representatives is concerned with protecting the voice of the people--not just people who agree with me, Mr. Speaker, but people from all stripes. I have read from the Sierra Club earlier. Let me read from the ACLU's comments to the administration on this rule. This is what they say: ``Social welfare organizations praise or criticize candidates for public office on the issues and they should be able to do so freely, without fear of losing or being denied tax-exempt status.'' That is ``the heart of our representative democracy,'' the ACLU says. ``The proposed rule''--that is the administration's rule; that is the rule we are here today to stop--``threatens to discourage or sterilize an enormous amount of political discourse in America.'' Mr. Speaker, I have a chart here today. It lists what tax-exempt organizations are able to do. A 501(c) is that section of the Tax Code that deals with tax-exempt organizations. You have 501(c)(3)'s that are able to do get-out-the-vote work, voter registration work, and candidate forums. 501(c)(4)'s are where the administration is regulating, and that is the source of the scandal: the targeting of American citizens based on their political beliefs. And 501(c)(5)'s are the labor unions in the country. Mr. Speaker, what folks need to understand is that, as we sit here today, all of these groups can do get-out-the-vote work. All can do voter registration work and candidate forums. Why? Because it advances our Republic. It advances the cause of freedom and discourse in America. But this, Mr. Speaker, is what the administration is proposing. For 501(c)(5)'s, or labor unions, it is proposing they continue doing all of that material. Also, for 501(c)(3)'s to continue doing all of that. But the 501(c)(4)'s--the very same 501(c)(4)'s that were targeted by the IRS on the basis of their political beliefs--those groups, and those groups alone, would be silenced. Mr. Speaker, America is not advantaged by that rule. Maybe in some shortsighted way someone believes their personal political agenda is advanced by that scheme, Mr. Speaker, but we do not. We as a Nation do not. It is a shortsighted gain. That is why we put this bill on the floor today to delay these new regulations, this change of how American political discourse occurs, for 1 year--and 1 year only--while the investigation completes itself. Mr. Speaker, I just want to read from the report that the inspector general crafted at the Treasury Department. He says, What were the words, what triggered this additional investigation that went on? This is what they were, Mr. Speaker. If you use the word ``Tea Party,'' you might get special scrutiny. If you use the word ``patriot'' in your name, you might get special scrutiny. If you were concerned, Mr. Speaker--and this is reading from the Treasury Department report--if you were concerned about government spending, government debt, or taxes, you could be subjected to special scrutiny. If you wanted, Mr. Speaker, to ``make America a better place to live,'' you could be subjected to special scrutiny. The administration has gone far beyond that, Mr. Speaker. They are not just going to subject some groups to special scrutiny, as is the source of the scandal. They are silencing all groups. If you had a statement in your case file, Mr. Speaker, that criticized how this country is being run, you were subject to special scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, that is not just our right, that is our obligation. Our obligation as citizens is to criticize the way this country is being run when we don't agree. Because, after all, Mr. Speaker, the President doesn't run this country. The Congress doesn't run this country. We the people run this country. This rule to bring this bill is about one thing and one thing only, and that is making sure that those people to whom the Constitution invests every bit of power that the country has to offer, the American citizens have a voice with which to express their concerns and the information on which to educate that voice. My colleague from Georgia was absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. There are so many things that happen on the floor of this House, you can't tell the difference between who is who regionally, politically, and what it is that folks believe. But this issue is one of those defining issues. Do you believe that the board of directors of America, the United States citizen, deserves a loud voice and full information? If you do, you vote ``yes'' on this rule, you vote ``yes'' on the underlying legislation, you reject the administration's effort to silence the American people on both sides of the aisle, and you commit yourself to believing that a full and open debate is the only way in which this country will succeed.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 478 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am one of those Members the gentlelady from New York referenced, one of those Members who voted in favor of an appropriations bill that funds the government for this year. In fact, I have voted for the House-passed budget and the Republican Study Committee budget in each and every year that I have been in this institution. What is unique about those votes, Mr. Speaker, is they absolutely understand that we are going to have to spend money that we don't have, but they take steps to make the problem better instead of worse. I want to take issue with what my friend from New York said about a raising of the debt ceiling with absolutely no strings attached as being the responsible thing to do. It is absolutely not. It is the worst-case scenario. Now, I am going to have colleagues on the floor today, Mr. Speaker, who are petrified of what happens if we don't do this today. They are petrified that even though we know we can come together and find a solution forward, find a solution that makes the problem better instead of worse, they are petrified that they do not have a willing partner in the President or with the Senate. So unless they vote to pass this bill today, America faces default, and that is an awful box, an awful box that my friends have painted. I want to read a few quotes, Mr. Speaker. I think words matter. This is from 2006, as a young Senator Barack Obama faced a debt limit increase in the United States Senate, and he said this--and I just want to point out, because my friend from New York talked about the obviousness of this vote, how clearly this is the right thing to do, just to raise the debt ceiling to whatever amount folks would like. Here is what Senator Barack Obama said in 2006. He said: The fact that we are even here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burdens of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. Then-Senator Barack Obama goes on, Mr. Speaker. He said: America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. America deserves better. Therefore, I intend to oppose this effort to increase America's debt limit. I don't have to say it very often, Mr. Speaker, but when the President is right, he is right. This was an opportunity to come together and one that we searched for, searched for. There is not a man or woman in this town who wants to find a path forward more than our Speaker, John Boehner, does. There is no one who has sweated to find that opportunity more than our Speaker has. Yet without a willing partner in the White House or the Senate, it can't happen. The same here, Mr. Speaker, 2006. Then-Senator Joe Biden says this: The President's budget plans will bring our debt to $11.8 trillion at the end of the next 5 years. This is a record of utter disregard for our Nation's financial future. Mr. Speaker, $11.8 trillion is what Joe Biden was concerned about. That number reached $16 trillion within that same time period. He goes on: It is a record of indifference to the price our children and grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt when it comes due. History will not judge this record kindly. My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already and will, no doubt, incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with, the policies that brought us to this point. Mr. Speaker, 2010, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said this: Our national debt is our biggest national security threat. Not terrorism, not al Qaeda, not a rogue nation, but our debt. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to deal with our debt. If it was easy, we wouldn't have the debt to begin with. It is hard, but I have seen us come together to fix it before. A $2 trillion worth of difference we came together to make 3 years ago, not even. Yet today, we find ourselves unable to find that path. Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of my friend from New York--I would very much appreciate it--I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). I thank my friend from New York.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would mention to my friend from New York that if she has no further requests for time, I am prepared to close.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 478 provides a closed rule for the consideration of S. 540. Now, if you heard the Clerk read S. 540, you might not have understood why we were here today. He read it exactly as it is drafted in the title, but we are here today to move a clean debt ceiling. Now, I won't tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am excited about being down here today. I am excited to be carrying the rule, because I believe this is the way that regular order ought to operate. But I came here, as you did, Mr. Speaker, and as so many of my colleagues did on the other side of the aisle, to try to move the needle, to try to move the needle on Federal spending, to try to move the needle on the borrowing that is going on from our children and our grandchildren. We talk so often back home, Mr. Speaker, about raising taxes. In fact, so many folks in this Chamber have signed a pledge to say I will never raise taxes on the American people, and I admire that sentiment. But, Mr. Speaker, when we have a vote to raise the debt ceiling, debt that has to be paid, we are, in effect, raising taxes on the American taxpayer. Now, it is not a surprise to anyone in this Chamber. I sit on the Budget Committee. Anyone who has looked at the budget understands that we don't have enough revenue to pay our bills. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of being on the Republican Study Committee as chair of their Budget and Spending Task Force. I had an opportunity last year to offer the most conservative budget offered in this Chamber--the most conservative budget offered in this Chamber--and we had to continue borrowing money as far as the eye can see. When Rand Paul was elected to the United States Senate among much fanfare--lots of conservatives across the country looking to Rand Paul for guidance, and rightfully so--he dropped a budget in the United States Senate, the most conservative budget introduced at that time in Washington, D.C., balanced the budget in 3 years by abolishing agency after agency after agency, sentiments that I happen to agree with wholeheartedly but know that we don't have the votes to achieve, and even that budget required borrowing money from our children and our grandchildren for the next 3 years. So it is not a happy day that we are here, Mr. Speaker. The happy day, I would argue, was back in August of 2011. I was a young freshman Member, Mr. Speaker. I remember it because it was the kind of vote that you ran for Congress to take. We were here, and the news commentators were back and forth; is it the right deal? Is it the wrong deal? John Boehner and President Barack Obama engaged in debate at the White House night after night after night, and suddenly, a deal was reached. Now, as has been my experience in my 3 years in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, the term ``a deal has been reached'' 100 percent of the time means what Rob Woodall wanted didn't happen. It is funny how that works out. I get one voice out of 435, and so when I have to send my Speaker down to the White House and negotiate with not just one President but 100 more Senators, I don't get what I wanted. But what I did get in August of 2011, Mr. Speaker, was an agreement that, if we raised the debt ceiling, if we agreed to further encumber our children and our grandchildren, as everyone in this Chamber knows that the current laws of the books require us to do, we would take a step, a $2 trillion step to try to make sure that we didn't have to raise the debt ceiling again. It didn't contain what anybody thought was the 100 percent right plan, Mr. Speaker, but it was a proposal that we could come together around--not just we Republicans; not we, the House of Representatives; not we, Capitol Hill, with the Senate; but we, the elected representatives of the American people, from the White House to the U.S. House to the United States Senate. We have come 2\1/2\ years, Mr. Speaker, and we have done some amazing things. I created No Budget, No Pay last year, for example, Mr. Speaker, which attached an increase in the debt ceiling to the requirement that we pass a budget out of this House and that they pass a budget out of the Senate, allowing us to come together to produce the first budget this institution has seen since I have been elected to the Congress, the first one. Not the first House-passed budget--we do that every year; it is our responsibility; of course we do--but the first one with which we found agreement with the Senate and received a Presidential signature. Mr. Speaker, the debt limit is a constant reminder of the imbalance of America's taxing and spending. We have a spending problem in this Nation. Everyone in this Chamber knows it. And the debt ceiling is an opportunity for us to come together and find solutions. And try as hard as he might, Mr. Speaker, when the Speaker of this United States House dug deep to try to find those answers, he could find none. Not that there were no answers out there--of course there are--but there were not answers out there that could receive the approval of this body, the approval of the Senate, and the signature of the President. I have to ask why, because there is not a man or woman who is going to come into this Chamber today who does not know that we need to take steps to address the problem. And dadgummit, Mr. Speaker, there is not a man or woman in this Chamber who doesn't know we have the ability to do it, because we have done it before--not 100 years ago, not 50 years ago, but just 3 years ago, with largely the same folks that are here today. That is not what this rule is bringing to the Floor today, but what it is bringing to the Floor is a clean debt ceiling resolution. This should be a day on which we are coming together around solutions to that longer-term spending problem, but we find ourselves here today simply trying to bring America back from an economic brink the likes of which not a single Member of this Chamber wants America to see. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. I thank the gentleman. And again, I thank the gentlelady from New York as well. Mr. Speaker, we don't have these opportunities very often. I would posit to my colleagues that if really the right answer is to pass clean debt ceilings whenever the debt needs to be increased, I would wonder why it is we don't just repeal the debt ceiling altogether. If this isn't a moment for us to come together, if this isn't a moment for us to do those things that have to be done, if this isn't a moment that focuses like a laser the American people on what the consequences are of the decisions we make today, I don't know what would be. This is our best opportunity. I could not be more grateful to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, for coming together to make some of those things possible. In fact, that great day in August of 2011 that I talk about, that wasn't possible with Republican votes. Turning the dial on spending to the tune of $2 trillion, that wasn't possible with just Republican votes. That was a bipartisan effort. That was a collaborative effort that makes a difference for our children and our grandchildren, and it is one of which I hope we are both proud. The men and women who are going to come to the floor of the House today to cast their vote are all going to be men and women who are deeply concerned about the future of this country. Now, some of those men and women are going to look into their hearts, and they are going to look at what default would mean to the Nation. They are going to believe earnestly that because we cannot find a partner in the Senate or in the White House to negotiate on solving the problem, that the only step left to take is either to default or not, and with a heavy heart, they are going to vote to raise the debt ceiling. There are other men and women in this body, Mr. Speaker, who are going to come to the floor today for this vote, and they are going to say, Default is a terrible, terrible, terrible even threat to make, but if we do not find a way to curb the growth of Federal spending, default is not a question of if; it is a question of when. It is a question of when. There is not a budget in Washington, D.C., that stops the borrowing next year or 2 years from now or even 10 years from now. There is not one, and the most conservative budgets we have don't have enough votes to pass. If not today, when? Now, I think the votes have been counted. The decisions have been made, Mr. Speaker. Folks have been grappling with this issue in their hearts and with their constituents. Mr. Speaker, I plead with you to play that role in this debate so that when this decision confronts us again--not if, but when--we take advantage of that to do the hard things that must be done. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle--and I know I speak for a large plurality of our Members on this side of the aisle-- challenge me to do those things that are hard. Give me that vote to take that so enrages the right flank that I get sent home in the next primary, but I had a chance to do something that mattered while I was here. Folks didn't leave their families to come and just cast a ballot to keep things going on the way they are going on, Mr. Speaker. They came from both sides of the aisle to make a difference. The path that we are on with spending and revenue is a path that is unsustainable to the tune of $17.3 trillion today and a path that is unsustainable to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars tomorrow. The economic demise of this country on that path is not if, but when, but we have the ability right here in this Chamber to make that difference. We have the ability right here in this Chamber to look our children and our grandchildren in the eye and say, When I had that voting card for that brief time, I did everything I did to make a difference. We have been on a streak here, Mr. Speaker, of coming together in surprising ways to achieve things that I thought could not be done. I hope we make deficit reduction in this next budget cycle that same bipartisan priority. I believe we can surprise even ourselves with the amount that can be accomplished. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chair, On rollcall No. 38, I was unavoidably detained (the DeFazio Amendment No. 6). Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Holt

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I represent the northeastern suburbs of Atlanta, but I voted in favor of a large farm bill today. We don't have too many farmers in our district, but we have folks who care about their children and their grandchildren and moving this country away from debt and back towards prosperity. I serve on the Budget Committee, and in my 3 years in this body, I have never been able to send a bill to the President that changes mandatory spending in the direction of savings as large as this bill does that we did today, over $3 billion in the first year. Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of broken promises, and they are tired of folks who promise the Moon and can't deliver. Today we took a small step in the right direction, and you will see me back here tomorrow looking for one more. I was proud to vote in favor of the farm bill today.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I confess to you that I went on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee--as all of my colleagues know, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is responsible for doing all of the oversight over the executive branch--because I was certain Mitt Romney was going to win. I said, for far too long, power has been leaving the people's hands on Capitol Hill, gravitating down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, and we in a Republican House will be able to do oversight over a Republican President and show the American people it is not about Republicans and Democrats; it is about article I and article II and about following the process, following the law, following the Constitution. It matters. It doesn't matter when times are good. It matters when things get dicey, when you begin to lose those freedoms little by little. I want to ask my friend from South Carolina, because we went through this with recess appointments, whether or not there was the ability for the President to appoint folks of his choosing to various positions around the city. And what I read that D.C. court opinion to say is what President Obama has done is absolutely outrageous. It cannot possibly stand. But what Congress allowed President Bush to do and President Clinton to do and President Bush before him to do and President Reagan before him to do, that was also unconstitutional; and Congress has to step up for the powers of the Constitution entrusted in us. Is this your understanding?

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from South Carolina. I appreciate his making this time available. Mr. Speaker, truth be told, this is a leadership hour, so it tends to be Republicans down on the floor when it is a Republican leadership hour, and it tends to be Democrats down on the floor when it is a Democrat leadership hour, but as my friend Mr. Stewart said so well: this is not a Republican problem. This is not a President Barack Obama problem. This is a ``we, the people'' problem. The concern is not that it is President Barack Obama who is saying the Affordable Care Act doesn't have to be enforced. The concern is that any President could say that any law doesn't have to be enforced. Thomas Jefferson said you are not likely to lose your freedoms through rebellion; you are likely to lose them little by little by little by little. That is why we all have to stand up together. Mr. Rice is a freshman from South Carolina. I have only been here for two terms myself. I think about some of the giants of this institution, not just of the House but of the Senate as well. I think about one of my favorite Democratic Senators, Robert Byrd from West Virginia--a champion of article I of the Constitution. He was a Democrat second; he was an American first, defending the Constitution against Presidents, Republican and Democrat, who would take the people's power from Capitol Hill and take it down to the executive branch. So I want to ask you now--and it may sound frivolous--if we had President Mitt Romney in the White House today and if Mitt Romney were deciding the Affordable Care Act did not need to be enforced, would you still be here on the floor, asking that Congress go to court to reclaim congressional powers? I ask my friend.

Mr. WOODALL. We should absolutely have arguments on this floor about how much money should be spent on this program versus that program, whether or not we should authorize a new issue or do away with an old issue. Those are those things that divide us. But we should be united, Republican, Democrat, House and Senate, over these constitutional issues of where does the people's power reside. Because if leaders like you, in the absence of Senator Byrd from West Virginia, in the absence of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in the absence of some of those greats who formerly preserved the people's power, I don't know how it gets preserved. I am certain that you face slings and arrows from folks thinking this is some sort of partisan stunt: you just don't like this President; you just have sour grapes over the last election. I have gotten to know you well over your very short time in Congress. It is so valuable to me that you put your responsibilities as an American first--far above your responsibilities as a Republican--and that despite those slings and arrows, the Constitution comes first. It may not seem like we need the Constitution to protect us each and every day; but when we wake up and realize it is not there, it is going to be too late. I hope this is something that spreads in a bipartisan way and in a bicameral way. We have preserved this Republic, this greatest form of government the world has ever known, only because folks have stood up when others did not see that necessity. We need this. There is the necessity today, and I am grateful to you for your leadership.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. As we are doing housekeeping here at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to include a section-by-section analysis of provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I won't speak for my friend from New York, but I enjoy the Rules Committee debate when it begins with such a long reading from the reading clerk, Mr. Speaker, because you know you are involved in something special on a day like today. If it was just an ordinary rule, we would be done with that reading in 15 or 20 seconds, and we would move on to debate. But the rule today, Mr. Speaker, is taking on a number of challenges. We are trying to move a budget conference report forward. This rule makes an opportunity for us to have that debate here on the floor of the House. We are trying to move an SGR fix, what they call the sustainable growth rate, Mr. Speaker. That is that provision that threatens to cut double digits from the reimbursement rates of physicians, hindering the access of seniors to their Medicare benefits. We are trying to solve that here today, again, bringing forward a bipartisan, bicameral solution to that. Also, we are providing for an opportunity to extend the farm bill language. We have gotten so close to a bicameral, bipartisan solution to the farm bill, Mr. Speaker, that those folks who are deeply involved in those negotiations tell us, if they could just get 30 more days, they will be able to get that done for the first time in far, far too long. This rule makes that debate available here on the floor of the House. Finally, in terms of housekeeping, there are so many other provisions that are being worked on, again, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan, bicameral way, bills that are almost ready to go to the desk of the President of the United States to be signed into law, to address so many of the issues that are of concern to men and women across this country. This rule makes any provision that the House deems necessary available to be considered on the same day. Now, I just want to be clear. As my colleague from New York knows, that is not the way we like to do business in this Chamber. There are a lot of serious Members in this Chamber, and every single one of them deserves an opportunity to review legislation before it comes to the floor, and so we have made a very strong commitment throughout this Congress to provide a 3-day layover for folks to review legislation. But during this season, with so many issues so close to fruition, issues that we have been working on, not for a day, not for a week, but issues that we have been working on collectively for months, those issues are almost ready to come to the floor, and so we waived that requirement that those bills lay over to make it possible for us to get as much of the people's business done as is allowable by the agreements that the House and the Senate come to. Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of sitting on the Budget Committee and the Rules Committee. In fact, I am only on the Budget Committee as the Rules Committee designee. And the proudest votes that I have been able to take in this House in my 3 years with the voting card of the folks of the Seventh District of Georgia have been on those budgets that we have crafted together in the Budget Committee, that we have brought to this floor, and that we have passed here on the floor. In fact, as you know, Mr. Speaker, for far too long, the House has been the only institution in town that has been able to pass a budget. The Senate joined those ranks this year for the first time in a long time, and I am proud to have them here. But we have been getting that business done. What we haven't been able to do is to then take the budget that the House has passed and combine it with a budget that the Senate has passed in order to create a vision of the United States of America for the coming years. Candidly, Mr. Speaker, with what I have seen in this town, with what I read of the differing opinions that are on each side of the aisle and each side of the Capitol, America didn't have any reason to expect that we would be able to come to an agreement this year either. They didn't. But we sent one of our best and our brightest, Chairman Paul Ryan of the Budget Committee, into those negotiations, and he was joined by one of my colleagues from Georgia, Dr. Tom Price, also one of our best and brightest, to put that Georgia stamp of approval on where we were headed with that budget conference report, and they teamed up with our colleagues in the Senate. Senator Patty Murray led the Senate side, led the Democratic side, let the Senate side. And they worked, again, not for a day, not for a week. They worked tirelessly around the clock to try to find an agreement that we could come to together. Now, I am a person who came here for big ideas, Mr. Speaker. I don't think you came here to do the little things. I think you came here to do the big things. I know my friend from New York came here to do the big things, those things that really make a big difference for America. We don't have that big budget deal on the floor. This rule doesn't make available debate on a big budget deal. We could not find the big budget deal. And for that, I am deeply sorry. I wish that we could have found that. But what we did find are those elements of agreement that were available to be found. In recent weeks, Mr. Speaker, I have grown fond of a quote first shared with me by our deputy whip, Peter Roskam. It was from a Thomas Jefferson letter to Charles Clay in 1790, and he says this: The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good. We are in the game of inches here today, Mr. Speaker, and I expect you will hear the same thing from my colleague from New York. We are going to secure today what we can get from time to time, and we are going to eternally press forward for that that is yet to get. My sense is my friend from New York is going to eternally press forward in this direction, and I am going to be eternally pressing forward in this direction, as is the process here, as she follows the wishes of her constituents and I follow the directions of mine. But we have an opportunity today, for the first time in the 3 years that I have served in this body, to come together on a budget agreement to get that which we can get before we both wake up tomorrow morning and begin to eternally press forward on that which is yet to get. I am grateful to those folks who have negotiated this budget deal. I am grateful to the folks of the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee who have come together to begin to find that bicameral, bipartisan SGR solution. I am grateful to my friends on the Ag Committee on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol who have been working so long and so hard to find that agreement on the farm bill. My great hope, Mr. Speaker, is that we are, with the beginning of the rule today, laying that framework and that foundation for bipartisan, bicameral agreement not just for this hour, not just for this day, but for this week and this month and the remainder of this Congress. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.J. Res. 59 Establishing a Congressional Budget Section-by-Section Analysis of Provisions Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules Section 111. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution. This section establishes a congressional budget for fiscal year 2014 for the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The section requires that the chairs of the Committee of the Budget in the House and the Senate submit a statement to the Congressional Record, which includes a committee 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations consisting of the total discretionary limit set forth in the Act, committee 302(a) allocations for all other House committees, and aggregate spending and revenue levels required for enforcement of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This section also maintains existing authority for the chair of the Committee on the Budget to make further adjustments to reduce the aggregates, allocations, and other budget levels in the statement referred to subsection (b) to reflect the budgetary effects of any legislation enacted during the 113th Congress that reduces the deficit. Section 113. Rule of Construction in the House of Representatives. This section provides that those provisions of H. Con. Res. 25 (113th Congress) necessary for budget enforcement will remain in effect to the extent that budgetary levels are not superseded by other provisions in this subtitle or other action of the House. Section 115. Authority for Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution in the House of Representatives. The purpose of this section is to ensure that the Committee on the Budget has time to complete consideration of a Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2015 and to preserve the ability of the Committee on Appropriations to begin consideration of its 12 annual funding bills in a timely manner. The Committee on Rules expects that the Committee on the Budget will pursue a budget resolution through regular order in the second session of the 113th Congress. The authority to effectuate the levels and allocations described in this section is only provided after the date by which the Congress is otherwise required to conclude consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget as prescribed in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. If a concurrent resolution on the budget is adopted by the House and the Senate, this section does not apply. This section establishes a congressional budget for fiscal year 2015 for the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Subsection (b) requires that the chair of the Committee of the Budget in the House of Representatives to submit a statement to the Congressional Record after April 15, 2014, but not later than May 15, 2014. The statement must include a committee 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations consisting of the total discretionary limit provided for in section 251(c)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, committee 302(a) allocations for all other House committees, and aggregate spending and revenue levels required for enforcement of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Subsection (c) also provides that the statement referred to in subsection (b) may include levels and limitations relating to advance appropriations, reserve funds, and overseas contingency operations/global war on terrorism. The Committee on Rules expects that the Committee on the Budget will base all levels and limitations established pursuant to this subsection on prior practices for determining such levels, including, in the case of advance appropriations and funding for overseas contingency operations/global war on terror, consistency with the President's request for such funding. This section also maintains existing authority for the chair of the Committee on the Budget to make further adjustments to reduce the aggregates, allocations, and other budget levels in the statement referred to subsection (b) to reflect the budgetary effects of any legislation enacted during the 113th Congress that reduces the deficit. Section 118. Exercise of Rulemaking Powers. This section clarifies that the provisions of this Act are enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking powers of the House and Senate, that they are considered part of the rules of each House, and that each House has a constitutional right to change the rules in the same manner that each House may change any other rule.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlelady from New York. I appreciate her mentioning all of those things that we are working on together. The gentlelady is absolutely right: we had an opportunity in the Rules Committee last night to add to these bills that we are considering today--these bills that are bicameral, bipartisan solutions to a budget; these bills that are bicameral, bipartisan solutions to a farm bill; these bills that are bipartisan, bicameral solutions to keep our seniors' access to Medicare. And to add to that an unemployment extension that we in the Rules Committee were seeing for the very first time, I don't know what the committees of jurisdiction were doing. I certainly was one of those ``no'' votes last night, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that is the appropriate place to do that. But I will say to my colleagues again today, as I said to them last night, I am so pleased that this rule contains that same-day authority, Mr. Speaker, that I mentioned earlier. Because if my colleagues, who I know have deeply heartfelt opinions about this issue, as do I, if that bipartisan, bicameral agreement can be found, this House has the opportunity, if we pass this rule today--and only if we pass this rule today--we will have the opportunity to bring such a package up. I hope we can find that agreement. But at the moment, Mr. Speaker, I hope we can pass this rule so that if such an agreement is found, we will have the authority on the floor of the House to bring that agreement immediately to the floor for consideration. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that our bipartisan, bicameral spirit lasted for the first 5 minutes of the debate. It was going to be too much to ask that it lasted much longer. I regret that. But I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, if you want to know why problems are so hard to solve in this town, when the folks who have such a heartfelt commitment to solving the problems begin the presentation with ``and we could do this, except for those heartless Republicans,'' it is easy to see why disagreement prevails and agreement is hard to find. I will say to my friend that I appreciate his recognition of the tireless effort we have put in on this side of the aisle to repeal the President's health care bill, which is denying not only the choice of plans to my constituents; it is restricting their choice of doctors as well. But the issue that he brings up is an important issue, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we will have more success on his issue than we have had the 40 times trying to repeal the President's health care bill. If what he wants is a symbolic vote on this issue, more power to him, but I don't believe that is what he wants. I think he cares deeply about challenges that folks have in this country and he cares deeply about solving those problems. I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, as I have said to all of my colleagues, we can do these things together. This is not a case of first impression. The gentleman knows that. We have come together in a bipartisan way to extend unemployment benefits. Just to be clear, because we spend a lot of time in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, creating fear out there, I think that is one of the most shameful things that we are a part of, Mr. Speaker: creating fear for families that needn't have that fear. For families that are concerned, we are talking about the emergency extended unemployment benefits. Those basic unemployment benefits that your State has guaranteed to you, nothing is happening to those, and folks need to know that. Those weeks of unemployment that the Federal Government has always provided, nothing is happening to those, and folks need to know that. What we are talking about are those emergency benefits. Now, what we have done in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, is to have come together not once, not twice, not three times, not four times--but more--to do this together, and we can do this together; but I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that we are only going to do it in working together. If the answer is that someone has got a heart and the other folks don't have a heart, we are not going to be able to solve the issue.

Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. WOODALL. In reclaiming my time, I would say to my friend, who has incredible expertise on this issue, that, instead of being on this floor, impugning our committee's process or impugning my heart, the gentleman could be hard at work in creating a bipartisan, bicameral solution, because the gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, that anything short of a bipartisan, bicameral solution is showboating for those folks who are hurting and is not doing a dadgum thing to help them. We don't need showboating in this institution, Mr. Speaker--we need results--which brings me back to the bipartisan, bicameral solutions that this rule has made in order. It wasn't easy, Mr. Speaker, but we came together on a budget for the first time not in 1 year, not in 2 years, not in 3 years--but more. It is important because we have come together on a pathway to a farm bill not in 1 year, not in 2 years, not in 3 years--but in more--and we have come together on a process to solve an SGR that has plagued us not for 1 year, not for 2 years, not for 3 years--but for more. This is not a day for acrimony, Mr. Speaker. There is not a person in this Chamber who is getting everything he wants today. I promise you I am not. I promise you my constituents are not. This is a day for doing what can be done, and what we are doing today makes a difference. I ask my colleagues to look at not just what we are doing today but at how it is we came together to do it, because that is the framework, Mr. Speaker, by which we will accomplish the rest of these goals that I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Tom Cole, a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I think the gentleman characterized much of that exactly right, and his characterization of all we have to do to make his idea a bipartisan idea is to agree to do it his way--that is all we have to do--and that is not the way we reach agreements in this institution.