Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, understanding that my friend from Maryland has called for a real debate.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, your rulings here today follow very clearly the Rules Committee meeting we had just across the Chamber last night that allowed for absolutely no amendment or discussion of any kind on two war resolutions that have received no markup of any kind in the committee of jurisdiction. I know that seemed like a bothersome and worrisome procedural process to have just gone through. Madam Speaker, in those few minutes that you were ruling those unanimous consent requests out of order, we have just discussed whether or not our commitment to Israel and its safety and security will be hampered by the underlying Khanna amendment in more detail than any committee of jurisdiction has ever done. In these few minutes of Members' asking for a debate and being told no, ironically, when time was yielded for the purpose of debate only, we have discussed the issue more than in any markup in any committee of jurisdiction. There is not one Member of this Chamber who does not think our Nation's sons and daughters in uniform deserve better. There is not one Member of this Chamber who does not think our ally Israel deserves better. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I don't question my friend from Maryland's passion at all. He says that we have the perfect vehicle to get this done today. I refer you back to the rule. That perfect vehicle is called H.R. 550, the Merchant Mariners of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2019. You haven't heard us talk about merchant mariners or gold medals yet today because, as you know, Madam Speaker, this rule would strip out all the language in the underlying bill that deals with gold medals and merchant mariners and replace it with matters of war and peace. I will quote the author of one of the amendments that is stuffed into the merchant mariners bill in place of the merchant mariners language, Mr. Khanna, who said in Politico last week: ``Majority Leader Hoyer has done an excellent job in figuring out a procedure for how we can get a vote on the floor on these bills without an MTR,'' a motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, a motion to recommit is what you heard folks asking unanimous consent for. A motion to recommit in this case would be the only opportunity for any voices to be heard at all on this issue. My friend from Maryland proudly talks about a single hearing that was held 2 weeks ago, but it wasn't held on this bill. There has been not one markup, not one word, discussed in committee, marked up, and reported to the floor of this House--not one. My friend from Maryland says that we have to debate and deliberate over matters of this gravity, that that is our job. Madam Speaker, let's do our job: debate and deliberate. What does it tell you? That I have been voting with the Speaker on these issues for almost a decade, on issues of war and peace, and I am offended by the process that you are using to bring this to the floor the first time. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order a bipartisan resolution, an amendment to deal with fentanyl and its listing on schedule I. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for the purpose of explaining that previous question vote.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put the text of our amendment to amend the rule to add S. 3201 in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Everything we have talked about has been partisan and divisive. What you have just heard from the gentleman from Oregon is to say, in the midst of why ever it is the majority has chosen to use this rule today to move partisan priorities, to make statements instead of policy, that we have one opportunity to make policy, actual policy, policy that passed the Senate unanimously, policy that America needs, desires, that is going to expire next week, and that, if we added it today, would go straight to the President's desk for his approval. I can't count the number of times my colleagues have said that issues deserve debate. I didn't come here to be part of a debating society. I came here to be a part of a getting-something-done group, conscientious men and women who want to do the best they can to serve their constituents. My friend from Oregon is offering us a chance to do exactly that today, and I would ask my friends--they have seen fit to use a very strange procedure to turn a Congressional Gold Medal for merchant mariners bill into a bill on war and peace. They have seen fit to strip away an opportunity for any voices to be heard on any of those measures whatsoever. They could, as long as they are setting precedent, go ahead and support our defeat of the previous question today to add one more item so that we don't leave here today having just made a point, so that we can leave here today having made a difference, as my friend from Oregon is giving us the opportunity to do.

Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I know my friend from Maryland is prepared to close. We had a bipartisan pathway forward on credit reporting agencies and reform, but the majority, in its wisdom, saw fit to shut those voices out; and this rule makes in order a partisan pathway forward that will go to the President's desk, if it makes it through the Senate, for a veto. For decades, you have worked to build bipartisan support for finally reexamining an AUMF that should have been reexamined decades ago. The majority, in its wisdom, has decided to shut out all voices, Republican and Democrat, hold no markups, change language not at all, and make a partisan exercise of what should be a bipartisan issue, a resounding bipartisan issue, in this House; and my friend from Oregon is offering us an opportunity to take what has always been a bipartisan effort to protect our young people from the harms of opioids, to prevent traffickers from making chemical changes that allow them to thwart the law, and move that to the President's desk immediately. Madam Speaker, defeat the previous question. Defeat the previous question so that we can at least do one thing that we know will make a difference today, one thing that will bring us together, one thing the Senate did unanimously and the President would put a signature on tomorrow. Let's do that one thing: defeat the previous question. I tell my colleagues, if they won't defeat the previous question, they are going to have to defeat the rule, because they have turned protecting consumers into a partisan exercise, protecting men and women in uniform into a partisan exercise, and all of the goodwill that men and women of this Chamber have put into building for decades becomes a little bit weaker today. Defeat the previous question; if not, defeat the rule. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I introduced this amendment in partnership with my friend from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), with whom I serve on the Rules Committee and with whom I serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I have a poster here, Mr. Chairman, of what it looks like when the foam is released to prevent a fuel fire in an airport hangar. If you can't tell from where you are sitting, this is the tail of the airplane being lifted up above the foam. As currently drafted, I certainly agree with the ranking member that this bill is much too expansive. But in this one limited case, it doesn't go far enough. Our building code enforcement agencies locally, our local fire codes, require that in order to have a hangar permitted, it must have these fire suppression systems. But what we found in our research, Mr. Chairman, is that more often than not, these systems go off unintentionally. In fact, in the last 16 years, there have been 174 hangar foam releases like this one. Only 37 of those were in response to an actual incident. The other 137 were accidental releases. If we are concerned about these toxic chemicals, certainly having them available for a dire firefighting need but released accidentally, it advantages no one. In fact, even in the 37 incidents that were in response to a fire event, none of those were in response to the fuel fire event that the building code requires these systems be installed to suppress. What my amendment does, Mr. Chairman, in partnership with Mr. DeSaulnier, is to say that when we are having these conversations about how to restrict the use of these foams, we need to have the FAA present in those conversations, and we need to have the local enforcement authorities for fire and building code safety present in those conversations to prevent these types of releases, again, that advantage no one. It is an opportunity to take what is a very well-intended effort to reduce the use of these chemicals and reduce it even further. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is the ranking minority member.

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman for his question. Absolutely not. What the amendment does is it has language, Madam Chair, that inserts the words ``or contact with'' to make that point that firefighters are not using the foam; they are responding after the foam has already been used. As Mr. Shimkus knows, when they come in contact with the foam in the course of their duties, it is our intent to lower the probability of any release of toxic foam on airfields. As I said, most of these releases are accidental releases. By bringing the building code inspectors to the table, we believe that we can reduce all instances of release without opening the dialogue on the topics about which he inquired.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, I will close by saying we may disagree about, again, the breadth of the overall legislation, but as it comes to this individual line-item, we are talking primarily about accidental releases of a very important firefighting foam but one that we know we want to reduce the usage of, the bipartisan partnership that we have created with the support of the chairman and ranking member. I am grateful to them for their leadership and support. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.