Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker--and again, pleasure to yield--I say to my friend, I fear it's thinking like that that's going to take us exactly there. Mr. Speaker, again, I take no pleasure in this freeze today. I believe in shared sacrifice across this country to solve our problems. The only thing that would be permissible in this legislation is to ensure that Members of Congress and fellow employees are both frozen together, as is ensured in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, bring this bill to the floor, support this underlying resolution, and remember that until $52,381 per man, woman and child in this country reads ``zero,'' we're going to have these discussions again and again and again. The President, Mr. Speaker, I'm told is planning to produce a budget. It's not going to be this month. It may come next month. Do you know that in the 2 years I've been here as a Member of Congress, the President's budgets never, ever, ever pay down one penny of this debt? We're complicit in this, Mr. Speaker; and, together, we can get ourselves out of it. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 66 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida (1) At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, following debate on H.R. 273 it shall be in order to 1 consider the amendment received for printing in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII and numbered 1, if offered by Representative Van Hollen of Maryland or a designee. That amendment shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. (2) On page 2, line 5, insert ``with or without instructions'' after ``recommit''.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the requirement of clause 11(a)(1) of rule X, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be composed of not more than 21 Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, there's a reason that we're spending so much time talking about things other than the underlying bill, other than the rule. The reason is because the rule is a good rule, and the bill is a good bill. We can use this time for the political theater that my friend from Massachusetts appears to disdain, but I would say he's got a talent for it and he should not disdain it so rapidly. Mr. Speaker, we handled the sequester in May. I hope whenever my friend from Massachusetts refers to his friends on the other side, he means the other side of the Chamber, not the other side of this House, because we, you and I, acted, Mr. Speaker, to solve those issues.

Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. WOODALL. 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. Mr. Speaker, we're here today, as you heard from the Clerk, on House Resolution 48, which provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 444, which is the Require a PLAN Act. This is a resolution that will require that the President, if he doesn't submit a budget that ultimately comes to balance, submit then a supplementary budget that shows how he would bring the budget to balance. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we've been grappling with serious budget challenges throughout this President's administration. We go back to FY 2009, the very first year of the administration; the deficit tripled the previous record-high deficit in this country to $1.4 trillion. It was $1.3 trillion in FY 2010, $1.3 trillion in FY 2011, $1.2 trillion in FY 2012. And, Mr. Speaker, there's no plan that the administration has produced to get us from where we are--fiscal irresponsibility--to a point in the future of fiscal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, we've been doing our part here in the House. We've been proud to work together across the aisle in order to pass budgets that tackle those hard challenges that are ahead of us. If you read the President's comments, Mr. Speaker, you will see that he recognizes the challenges are hard. The question is: Are we going to deal with those or not? I hold here, Mr. Speaker, a speech that the President made to the Democratic National Convention on September 6, 2012, where he said this: I will use the money that we're no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work. And my notes here said that it was followed by extended cheers and applause. I expect my friend from Massachusetts supports that spirit wholeheartedly, that, ``I will use the money we're no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work.'' But, Mr. Speaker, I also hold in my hand a transcript from the Budget Committee, on which I have the pleasure of sitting, when we had the President's Treasury Secretary come before the Budget Committee to explain the budget, and I said this: Can you tell me just in simple terms--in true or false terms, this budget never, ever, ever reduces the debt, is that right? Treasury Secretary Geithner: Uh, that is correct. It does not go far enough to bring down the debt, not just as a share of the economy, but overall. You're right. I then said this: It doesn't bring down the debt at all. Mr. Speaker, that's the conflict that we face here as a people, as a country. Not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as a people. On the one hand, what our politicians are saying is we're going to use the money to pay down our debt. But what the reality is is that proposals are coming out today that never, ever, ever pay down a penny of debt. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you want to see that for yourself, you can look. The President's budgets each year are posted online on the OMB Web site. In fact, the very first one he submitted--I hold the cover page here--it was called ``A New Era of Responsibility.'' ``A New Era of Responsibility'' is the first budget that the President ever submitted. But as I go through that budget, Mr. Speaker, what I see is projections for 2020, for 2030, for 2040, for 2060, and for 2080. Mr. Speaker, hear that. You have got young children--2020, 2030, 2040, 2060, and 2080--and in each one of those years, according to the President's budget, not only does the budget never balance under his plan, but it continues to get worse. 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2080--the President's budget. And I think that comes as news to so many of us, Mr. Speaker, I confess, because I've listened to the speeches, just as my friend from Massachusetts has, where we talk about getting the deficit under control, where we talk about paying down the debt. Only when you get into the plan, do you see that we never pay down one penny. So this rule today, Mr. Speaker, would allow us to take up a bill that would require the President for the very first time to submit a balanced budget. It doesn't have to balance the way I would balance it. It doesn't have to balance the way you would balance it. But to submit a balanced budget. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, the statute actually required the President submit his budget yesterday. He's going to miss that deadline, but I'm expecting it soon and I'm looking forward to reading it soon. It's so that we actually give the American people a plan. I want to say--because we heard it in the Rules Committee last night, and I believe my friend from Massachusetts brought it up and he was absolutely right--the history of debt and deficits in this country, Mr. Speaker, is not a mark of shame on the Democratic Party and it is not a mark of shame on the Republican Party; it is a mark of shame on all of us collectively. Candidly, you and I here, Mr. Speaker, in the big freshman class of 2010, I'm less interested in finding out who to blame and I'm more interested in finding out who has a solution to solve the problem. This House passed a solution to solve the problem. I'd like to see the Senate create a solution. I'd like to see the President create a solution. I'd like to see us discuss that solution as the American people, Mr. Speaker. There were 14 amendments submitted to this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. We heard testimony on that in the Rules Committee yesterday. Unfortunately, six of those 14 amendments were nongermane; we were not able to make those in order. But we did make in order three Republican amendments, one Democratic amendment, and one bipartisan amendment. In fact, all the Members who came to the Rules Committee yesterday to testify on behalf of their amendments, we were able to make those amendments in order. Mr. Speaker, all this bill does, should it become law, is require that if the President doesn't submit a balanced budget--it's certainly my great hope that he will, but if he doesn't, he share with the American people--again, not in 5 years, not in 10 years--whatever number he believes is the right way to set priorities, tell the American people what steps he will take to get us back on track. Candidly, Mr. Speaker, it's unconscionable that we can look at projections going out to 2080 and have folks never, ever, ever pay down one penny of debt. Contrast that with what we did here in the House of Representatives, where with a budget that passed this House, the bipartisan vote that passed that budget, passed the only budget that passed anywhere in this town, not only would we have balanced the budget in that time frame, Mr. Speaker, we would have paid back every penny of our $16.4 trillion Federal debt. That's no small conversation. It's a conversation that's long overdue on this House floor. It's a conversation that has been too long ignored by both Democrats and Republicans, and I'm pleased to be here today to take that up with my friend from Massachusetts, and then later on, the underlying bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Massachusetts because he's highlighting exactly what our challenges are and exactly why it's so important that we pass both the rule and H.R. 444 today. He went through item after item after item that have absolutely tied our economy up in knots. Short-term problems and short-term solutions are trumping the discussion of long-term problems and long-term solutions. The sequester that he mentioned, Mr. Speaker, do you know that it was the month of May last year that this House first passed a replacement to the sequester? Now, as you know and as history has recorded, the Senate never acted on any replacement of a sequester, and now we talk about what happened on January 1 as if it was something that was created by this House, as if that fiscal cliff was something that this House invented. In fact, we have a very proud history, bipartisan history, of looking further down the road to try to find the best answers and the best solutions to very serious problems. But we can't do it alone, Mr. Speaker. One of the great successes we've had just early in this year--and by ``we,'' I mean this entire House, the people's House--is that we appear to have persuaded the Senate to pass a budget for the first time in 4 years. All indication is that this year, unlike last year and the year before that and the year before that, this year they're going to pass a budget to lay out their plan. But what does it say, Mr. Speaker, about this House, about this process, about the future of this country that it's controversial whether or not the President of the United States should introduce a budget that balances ever? That's the debate today, Mr. Speaker. That's how out of touch Washington has become. That's how confused the speeches have been written. We're debating whether or not the President should introduce a budget that ever balances. I'm advocating, yes, he should. Others are advocating, no, that shouldn't be a requirement; when you take the oath to fully execute the laws of the land, when you take the oath to faithfully protect and defend the United States of America, it shouldn't be a requirement that you balance budgets. In fact, you should be free, not just for 10 years, not just for 20 years, not just for 40 years, not just for 80 years, but forever to deficit spend, to borrow from a generation of children and a generation of grandchildren to pay for our wants today, taking away from their needs tomorrow. This rule debate is going to come to a close in 40 minutes and we're going to vote. Then if the rule passes, we're going to go into a vote on the underlying bill. There are going to be ``no'' votes on the board that say, no, the President should never have to explain to the American people how we're going to make our fiscal tomorrow better than our fiscal today. I would like to change his mind, Mr. Speaker, but for now I'm going to focus on changing the minds right here in this Chamber. Because if there is anything that unites us in this body, rather than divides us, it is a true love of this country. And I challenge anyone, Mr. Speaker, to define their love of our freedoms and of our country in a way that allows us to continue borrowing from the next generation forever. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to say to my friend from New York, for whom I do have tremendous respect and value her counsel, to call this a stupid piece of legislation I think really misses the point about what we're doing here. I would encourage you to ask your constituents in New York, and, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage you to ask your constituents back home, do folks realize, because I didn't, that in the four years that the President has been President of the United States, the budgets that he has introduced come to balance never? My friends on the other side are making a persuasive case, Mr. Speaker, for why it is they would support doing things with different priorities than I would support doing things. And that's absolutely going to be true. When we debate the budget resolution, we're going to have different approaches for getting to balance. But the President's budgets never get there. If we give him every spending cut he asks for, if we give him every tax increase he asks for, if we do absolutely everything that the budget that he is required by law to submit requests, we will begin to pay down the first penny of debt never. In fact, if we do absolutely everything that the budget he is required by law to submit to us asks, the debt will continue to grow forever. I agree with so much of what my friends on the other side are saying about the sequester, about the fiscal cliff. That's why we acted in May in this body. That's why we acted in August in this body on this tax bill. That's why we passed another sequester replacement in August. That's why we passed another one in December. I agree. But can't we also agree that if you're going to be Commander in Chief of America, if you're going to be the President of the United States, if you're going to uphold and defend the Constitution--and we have our former Joint Chief of Staff Chairman telling us that our greatest national security threat is our growing debt--shouldn't it be fair to ask the President to tell us when, if ever, he plans to begin paying back the first penny? Mr. Speaker, it's not a stupid piece of legislation that we're dealing with today. What's almost laughably ridiculous is that it's controversial.

Mr. WOODALL. I believe the gentleman has much more time. I will be happy to reserve the balance of my time, though, and allow my friend to control.

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

Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, my friend is exactly right. Of all of the multiple efforts that we did last year that were all rejected by the other side, we have not recreated those efforts again this year. He's exactly right. What we have done, however, is created a pathway that's going to produce the first budget on the Senate side, the first opportunity for the bodies to come together in conference. My friend from New York tells us about, I'm just a bill and what schoolchildren are learning all over America. Mr. Speaker, they're going to have to learn on TV because they have not seen it in this town. We can't. We can't go to conference on a budget unless the Senate passes one. And this year, Mr. Speaker, as governed by the rule book, the United States Constitution that I have right here in my hand, we're going to be able to get that done. That's the kind of work this House is doing. That's the groundwork that we're laying. My friend from New York is exactly right, Mr. Speaker, when she says that this body, led by Chairman Ryan on the Budget Committee, is going to produce a budget so serious and so responsible, it's going to come to balance, the balance the American people are demanding, faster than any other budget we have seen in this President's administration. All we're asking, Mr. Speaker: Doesn't it seem reasonable to let the President submit any budget he wants to? We don't want to change the budget he's submitting at all, but just to share with the American people because they don't know when they come to balance. Who knew, Mr. Speaker, when the budget was entitled a ``New Era of Responsibility,'' that it wasn't going to come to balance in 80 years? Who knew? I didn't. There are people in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, who did not know that in 4 years of his Presidency, this President has never, ever--assuming a world where he gets everything that he wants-- crafted a plan that begins to pay back the very first penny of our debt. That's dangerous, Mr. Speaker. This bill can put a stop to that process. That is why I know it's going to get support here in the House. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to my friends that I haven't actually mentioned that the President's budget was late. You're exactly right. He did miss the statutory deadline. He's not going to make it on time. In fact, the story is that it's not going to get here until March. In the years that I've had a voting card, he has never submitted a budget on time. I'm not asking him to get it here on time. I am only asking him, when it gets here, would he tell us when it's going to balance. With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to a colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my colleague that I share her great passion for America's children and protecting America's children. And I would say to my friend that I don't believe we can continue to operate under budgets that borrow from those children, not just this year, not just next year, but forever, and candidly say that we're protecting them. We're putting our most vulnerable at risk with these deficits, and we have to make the tough decisions.

Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to yield.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to read from the President's inaugural address. It took place just outside our backdoor here. He said: We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. He didn't say we should make the easy choices, because there aren't any easy choices left to make. Every single one of them is hard. And I have such great respect for Members of this body who have taken the hard votes and made those hard decisions. All this bill says is: Mr. President, put your budget where your speeches are. Make the hard choices, any of the choices you want to make to balance, anytime you want to balance, but we can't begin to pay down the debt until we stop running up the debt. And we have yet to see a budget from this President that puts us on that path. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to say to my friend that I know his commitment to Social Security is heartfelt, and it's one that I share. I hope it gives him comfort to know that there is absolutely nothing in this legislation that changes any of those commitments that he read there on the House floor. In fact, I would say the opposite is true. As someone who's going to retire after Social Security is projected to have gone bankrupt, I think it is critically important that every budget we look at looks at how it is we're going to pay back all of those government bonds that this Congress has swapped the cash in the Social Security trust fund for. Without paying back those bonds, there is no Social Security check to go out the door. The reason we talk about balanced budgets is because numbers are important. We talk about balanced budgets because commitments are important. And we cannot, we cannot meet our Medicare commitments. We cannot meet our Social Security commitments, and everyone in this body knows it. Every budget the President produces shows it. But we can do better; and working together, we will do better, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. I'd say to my friend, I'm prepared to close.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to thank my friend from Massachusetts for being down here with me today to get this rule to a place where we can vote on it. I always look to my friend from Massachusetts to find those things that we agree on, and we certainly agree that Congress has an awfully low approval rating. I would disagree with my friend though, Mr. Speaker, and say it's a low approval rating because we don't deal with important issues like this. It's a low approval rating because folks will say Republicans want to privatize Social Security, even though our budget did no such thing. It's a low approval rating because folks will say our budget destroys Medicare forever, even though our budget did no such thing. It's a low approval rating because folks say they want to grapple with the tough challenges of the country, and yet they continue to borrow and spend as they always have. But I'm an optimist, Mr. Speaker. I really do believe that we've come to a place--not just in this country, not just in this House--I think we've come to a place in each individual in this country, where folks are prepared to do those things that must be done to ensure that our children's tomorrow is better than their today. Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about their deep love and affection for the next generation and how they want to ensure that the most vulnerable are taken care of, they mean it from the heart. They mean it from the heart. But when the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tells us that our biggest national security concern is our growing debt and deficits, how much love can you show to the next generation, Mr. Speaker, when you continue to dig into their pockets instead of your own? It's not incumbent upon us to decide how our children set their priorities. It's incumbent upon us to set our priorities so that they don't have to make those tough decisions. Mr. Speaker, if we went out in the street in front of this Capitol and asked every man and woman who brought their family here to visit the Nation's Capitol how many of them knew that in not one budget, and for not 1 year does the President ever propose that we come to balance, that would be shocking, shocking news. And yet it's the truth. Mr. Speaker, title 31 lays out in intricate detail congressional requirements for the President's budget. Congressional requirements for the President's budget. H.R. 444 would incorporate those requirements and add one more and, that is, that in this time of economic challenge, you be honest with the American people about the tough choices that we're all facing. Mr. Speaker, if it was easy, they'd have done it before you and I got here. It's hard, and it's getting worse every single day any one of us fails to deal with it. We can deal with it today, Mr. Speaker. I know our Budget Committee is committed to dealing with it. I know this House is committed to deal with it. Let's make the President a partner in that today. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the resolution. I urge strong support for the underlying bill.

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman for yielding. I used to come to this podium, Mr. Speaker, and say I'm just a House freshman, but this is what I think about things. I'm now a House sophomore. It's been 2 years and 1 month since I arrived here; and if you told me 2 years ago when I arrived that we were going to be bringing five-page pieces of legislation to this floor for up-or-down votes by this body, I wouldn't have believed it because I've watched the way this House has operated for over a decade. I see these bills--and Mr. Speaker, you've seen them too--these bills that folks have to carry down here on a dolly, those bills that they drop them down here on the rostrum with just a thump. Folks can't read those bills; folks can't analyze those bills; folks can't digest those bills. But this one that we have today deals with an incredibly complicated topic, the debt ceiling, an incredibly controversial topic--how it is that the House and the Senate get their business done--and yet we bring it in five pages that every Member of this body has had a chance to read and digest, every Member of this body. We had a hearing on it in the Rules Committee yesterday. And here on the floor today we're going to debate this bill not just with one committee of jurisdiction, with the Ways and Means Committee getting time, but with two committees of jurisdiction, the Ways and Means Committee getting time and the House Administration Committee getting time. You know, it's unusual, Mr. Speaker, that we have a bill that the Speaker of the House has decided to bring forward, that the majority leader of the Senate has praised the Speaker for bringing forward, and that the White House has said it doesn't have any objection to. That's unusual. Candidly, it makes me a little suspicious. That's the way it's been around here. I think my colleagues on the Rules Committee would agree. So often we get so used to the controversy that if we can't fight about something, we start to wonder what's wrong, what's wrong that we can't fight about something. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have that opportunity to fight. We don't have that roadmap yet. Of course, the House has laid out its budget roadmap year after year after year after year. Certainly, the 2 years I've been here, the House has done its job--much to the credit of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and passed a budget. This year, rumor has it the Senate is going to do the same thing. This bill certainly puts an incentive in place for both the House and the Senate to get their job done, but how is it that we're going to tackle those tough decisions that my friend from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, talked about, those really difficult financial decisions, talking about those obligations we have in the future that we have absolutely no plan or means to pay for. How are we going to grapple with those decisions? Well, I'll tell you, I wish we had gotten a big deal in the debt ceiling debate of August of 2011. We got a step in the right direction, but we didn't get it all done. I wish we had gotten it in the Joint Select Committee. We didn't get it done. I wish we had gotten it in the fiscal cliff debate of last year. We didn't get it done. But I believe--maybe it's just a hope, Mr. Speaker--but I believe that if the Senate has the courage to lay out its path for America--its path for America's budget and dealing with America's obligations--and if the House has the courage to lay out its vision for America, its vision of dealing with America's obligations, that we're going to find that opportunity to come together to make those decisions that have to happen. Now, I hope I'm not speaking out of school, Mr. Speaker, but I had a chance for some constituents in town--some of my business leaders, some of the great entrepreneurs from my district, they're in town. I took them by to meet with Speaker John Boehner. I'll tell you, I come from one of the most conservative districts in the United States of America; Speaker John Boehner is not always the most popular name in my district. But I brought them by to meet him because I wanted them to hear from him directly and he said this to them, he said: We have real opportunities in divided government, real opportunities to come together and do the big things that matter; that only in divided government can you bring together the best ideas from both sides and put everybody's fingerprint and stamp of approval on them and do those things that really make a difference for America. And my goal is to do those things while I'm leading this, the people's House. I take him at his word, Mr. Speaker. And if giving this 90-day extension so that budgets can be passed gives him that opportunity, I'll do it. A colleague of mine yesterday said, ``That stuck with me.'' He said, ``I've had people I respect a whole lot less ask me for a whole lot more.'' I have great respect for our Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan. I have great respect for our Rules Committee chairman, Pete Sessions. I have great respect for the Speaker of the House. If they tell me another 90 days is going to give us that opportunity to do those big things I think we on both sides of the aisle want to do, I'm there. I support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I hope folks will support the underlying bill.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me the time. I came down here to talk about tax policy and my support for the rule, Mr. Speaker; but I've got to tell you, when folks back home ask me what's wrong with this place, I'm going to start playing them a clip of this debate because there's a serious topic on the floor right now. This fiscal cliff, I don't think there's a man or woman in this room with a voting card who doesn't believe this is a serious issue for our economy, for working families, and for small businesses that we're counting on bringing us out of this recession. I believe every man and woman in this room believes that. And yet as we're down here trying to have that discussion, in the short 11 days we have left to sort that out, I hear that our tax package, which does exactly what the President has asked, though not the levels that he asked for it, it picks winners and losers. He campaigned on that platform. I think it's wrong. I think we ought to keep tax rates low for everyone, but the President says no. The President says we ought to pick some folks who win and some folks who lose, and this tax bill does that. But it just deals with taxes because, as my friend from Massachusetts reminded me, when I ran as a part of this freshman class, I said let's try to make things more simple here. Because we all know what happens at the end of the year. Anybody who's watched this process in December knows those Christmas tree bills that come rolling to the floor where you handle 100 different unrelated things at one time. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd be interested in polling folks who don't have a voting card. I'd be interested in knowing what folks who've listened to this debate believe is happening in this underlying tax bill, because I've been told by some of the speakers on this floor that this tax bill throws Americans off unemployment; when, in fact, it does no such thing. No such thing. Do we need to deal with unemployment? Yes, we do--in an unemployment bill. I've been told that this tax bill cuts payments to doctors. It does no such thing. There's not one line in this bill that does any such thing. Do we need to deal with Medicare and SGR? Of course we do. Do we need to jumble all of these things together in a straightforward tax bill? The answer's no. I'm told by my friend it's not just stony silence on these issues; it's stone hearted to be silent. Who is it, Mr. Speaker, who believes it advances the debate, this hard, complicated debate we have, who believes we advance it by calling the absence of a nongermane provision stone hearted on the part of the authors? Don't tell me about violating trust. Don't tell me about how it is folks ought to work cooperatively together. We have that opportunity right now, and folks are throwing it away line by line by line. My friend from the Rules Committee comes to the floor, Mr. Speaker, and he says this bill throws folks off food stamps. Nonsense. Nonsense. Every single time I go to the town hall meeting, Mr. Speaker, folks believe if only we eliminate the fraud in government, we'll balance the budget. Now, due to spending that both sides of the aisle are responsible for, we're way far out of balance. Fraud won't do it, Mr. Speaker. That's not going to be enough. But what the underlying bill does to request to eliminate the defense sequester cuts that President Obama's Secretary of Defense has called so dangerous, it says the only people who should get food stamps are people who qualify for food stamps. That's right. The underlying bill says the only folks who should get food stamps are those who qualify for food stamps. Now, it turns out, Mr. Speaker, like every Federal program, there's some fraud, and so some folks are receiving taxpayer-sponsored benefits today who have not earned them, who do not find themselves entitled to them by virtue of their circumstances. And because this underlying bill aims to eliminate that fraud, folks come to the floor and say, Why in the world are Republicans throwing hungry people out during Christmas? It's outrageous, Mr. Speaker, that we can't have a conversation about serious things in a serious time. The outrages that my colleagues on the Rules Committee point to from last night, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, what happened last night is exactly what I would hope would happen in a conversation like this. Almost to a person, every Democratic member in that Rules Committee and those testifying said, All we have in front of us tonight is a tax bill. All we have in front of us is a tax bill, and every American knows the problem isn't taxes. The problem is too much spending. Where are the spending cuts? And so the Rules Committee staff went to work immediately, Mr. Speaker, and found a package, not that had never been seen before, not that had never been read before, not that had never been vetted before, but one that had passed this body in a bipartisan way. They said, You know what? The criticism from my colleagues is right. We do need to do this, and we did.

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman for the additional time. There is a sense out there in this country that folks in Washington, D.C., just want to argue about things, that they don't want to solve anything at all. You all made absolutely accurate criticisms last night that I'm glad we took steps to correct. We have a straightforward tax bill today. We have a straightforward sequester replacement bill today. Mr. Speaker, this isn't the wrong way to do things; this is the right way to do things. And with only 11 days left to prevent all American families from having an unprecedented tax increase, let's pass these bills. Let's pass this rule. Let's get to debate on the underlying resolutions.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman for his words. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my great pleasure to yield to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Mr. Herger.