Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, a freshman Member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), the bill's sponsor, to set the record straight on what the bill actually does.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from Maryland, about whom I say regularly back home has a great reputation for fair dealings, that I am tremendously disappointed by that characterization of the bill.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this has been an interesting experience for me as a freshman Member of Congress and as a cosponsor of the underlying legislation. I haven't had my motives impugned quite as much in the previous days as I've had them impugned today. We're trying to make a difference. We're trying to move the ball forward. I wish our ``I'm just a bill'' song went on to talk about what you do when you have an intransigent Senate that can't act, a Senate that's paralyzed with inaction. I wish that were part of a song, but it's not. In 7 days, Madam Speaker, the United States Government shuts down. I just want to make that clear. In 7 days, the United States Government shuts down if the Senate can't pass a bill and if we can't get together and define a solution. That means our men and women in uniform don't get paid. That means our USDA inspectors, who inspect all the meat and the chicken that we eat, won't go to work, and those products won't go to the grocery stores. It's not a little deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal, and this is a step in the direction towards finding a solution. Now, this rule provides for debate on that underlying resolution. We'll get to that this afternoon, and I look forward to that. I would ask all my colleagues on the left and the right, the conservatives and the liberals of all stripes, to support this rule so that we can move forward and debate in an open fashion the underlying resolution.

Mr. WOODALL. You want to remove the most debated provision we have had in this entire Congress? You feel that hasn't been debated enough?

Mr. WOODALL. The Member pay issue is critically tied to the inaction of the folks on the funding bill. The answer is no, Mr. Ellison, I cannot agree to that.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who is making sure we do keep our promises on Capitol Hill, the gentleman from California, Chairman Lungren.

Mr. WOODALL. To be clear, Mr. Andrews, I absolutely said that the government cannot create jobs. It can hire people that would otherwise have been hired in the private sector.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 194 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would be happy to answer that question. By eliminating the crushing Federal deficit that we have today? By taking the first steps we have seen in a generation to take the government out of the capital market and put the private sector back in?

Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to try again, Mr. Ellison.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, it appears that this is going to be an April Fool's theme day, and I suppose I should have known that when I woke up this morning. I am a little surprised that it begins with folks claiming a point of order against unfunded mandates that they are not sure at all exist in the bill; that they claim a point of order against unfunded mandates in a rule that waives those points of order if they did exist. I want to say, Madam Speaker, I'm a big proponent of regular order. A big proponent of regular order. And the prophylactic waiver that is in the rule is designed just in case there was something that we missed. But what is important is that we had the largest and most open debate we have had in this House in a decade on H.R. 1, the only provision that could possibly have an unfunded mandate in it and does not. This bill does two things, the underlying legislation does two things: It both gives the Senate an opportunity to come out from under its paralyzing inaction and pass H.R. 1; and, it says that if the Senate does not, if the Senate fails to act--we are not asking the Senate to do exactly what we want them to do. We are asking them to act. If they fail to act, that Congress will not get paid. Congress will not get paid. My colleagues on the left won't get paid, my colleagues on the right won't get paid, and my colleagues in the Senate won't get paid. I would ask my good friend Mr. Ellison, do you believe that this provision that will prevent us from getting paid for not doing our job is the unfunded mandate in that provision?

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

Mr. WOODALL. Well, let me reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, to say that I appreciate the gentleman's support for making sure we don't get paid if we are not doing our work. There is a divide in this town, Madam Speaker. There is a crowd that believes that government creates jobs, and the more government activity that takes place the more jobs there are. There is another crowd in this town that believes that only the private sector can create jobs. As this bill will put more capital into the private markets, it will create jobs. As this bill will provide much-needed certainty that we cannot have under these continuing resolutions, this bill will create jobs. As this bill goes to complete the work that should have happened last Congress but did not, this bill will create jobs. It is a cruel April Fool's Day joke on the American people, Madam Speaker, that instead of debating the underlying resolution--and I have a rule that I am prepared to bring to the floor that will allow time to debate the underlying resolution--we are instead focused on points of order that even my colleagues on the left don't believe exist. They accuse us of perverting the process, Madam Speaker, and we have had the most open process in the first 90 days of this Congress than this Congress has seen in a decade. And, in doing so, they pervert the process, raising points of order that they do not believe exist and they know in their hearts do not exist. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. My amendment supports a longstanding FAA regulation of medical charter flight services under part 135. There's been a lot of focus on fatigue and pilot rest and duties. I certainly understand that on the passenger side of the equation, but these medical charter flights fall into a little different category. If you chartered a flight to fly down and pick up a heart for a heart transplant, the lifesaving thing to do is to actually keep that flight coming back, not to delay it with additional rest and regulations. Because of the unique circumstances that these air ambulances are in, that these medical charter flights are in--and we even expanded it to include cargo because in this increasingly regulatory environment I didn't want there to be any confusion that if we had a heart on a plane, that was somehow not a medical ambulance flight because there was no person there to prevent the FAA from re-regulating this area in the same way that they have regulated passenger charter flights. This has long been treated under a special part of the regs for a special reason because these air ambulance flights provide a critical addition to our health care delivery system in this country and because the flights that they are involved in are genuinely a matter of life and death. With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this protection of the current regulatory structure of these medical charter flights and prevent the reinterpretation of that structure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is scheduled to meet the week of April 4 to grant a rule, which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment must submit an electronic copy of the amendment and a description via the Rules Committee's Web site. Members must also submit 30 hard copies of the amendment, one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment, and an amendment log-in form to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 5, 2011. Both electronic and hard copies must be received by the date and time specified. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bills as ordered reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which are available on the Rules Committee Web site. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members should also check with the Office of the Parliamentarian, the Committee on the Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House and the Congressional Budget Act. If Members have any questions, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage Members to contact me or members of the Rules Committee staff.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding, and I'm pleased to serve beside him on the Rules Committee. And I went to work on the Rules Committee because of my enthusiasm about openness in this process. One of the very first things we learned during freshman orientation was that we have a leadership team that is committed to openness the likes of which this Congress hasn't seen in decades, decades. I didn't plan to come down and speak this morning, but I'm sitting back in my office, and I'm listening to the characterization of what's happening down here today, and it caused me to think about my 65 days here in Congress so far. You know, the process was more open and involved more debate on the repeal of health care than it did the implementation of health care. I happen to have brought down the NPR bill today. Now, I'm here in strong support of the rule that's bringing this bill to the floor, and I hope folks will vote their conscience on the underlying bill. That's what we all came here to do, and I hope that happens. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven--seven pages here today that we've asked Members to read and digest in 3 days. Seven pages. Now, I wasn't here in the last Congress when thousand-page bills rolled through this body under the same closed process and the same closed length of time. But I can tell you this: my constituents sent me to read seven pages, and I've read them; and I'll be voting my conscience on the underlying bill. But, folks, we are involved in a process here that we need to be applauding, not condemning. We're involved in a process here that we need to be nurturing, not undercutting. Have you seen the debate on the floor of the House over the last 2 months? Have you experienced the back-and-forth on the floor of the House in the last 2 months, and do you feel the difference? Because I do. I absolutely do. I don't just feel it; I hear it when I go back home. We are in the people's House. The chain across the front steps--must be a photo op going on out there this morning. The chain was down. It just felt different walking in this morning because you could just walk up the steps free. Folks, the chains have come down in this House. The chains have come down in the House, and we're free to engage in this debate, and that's what we're doing. Right here today we're engaged in this debate. Should we have extensive committee hearings on absolutely everything that comes to the floor? I believe we should. Should we have an open process for absolutely everything that comes to the floor? I think that's a laudable goal. Do we have constraints that require the rules of the House, because there are 435 of us. It's not like that well-ordered body across the Hall where they only have 100 Members and they get along so well together. We've got 435 folks with lots of passion and lots of opinion, and we need some structure to make that happen. But this leadership team, with this Congress, both on the left and on the right, has created the most open process with the most extensive amendment process, with the most full debate process that this body has seen in years. And I thank the leadership team for doing that. And I rise in strong support of the rule.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I proudly congratulate two schools from my district, Parkview High School and Simpson Elementary School, for having earned the prestigious 2011 Georgia School of Excellence Award. The Georgia School of Excellence award is an annual honor awarded by the Georgia School Superintendent to the schools showing the greatest improvement or highest achievement across the state. Parkview High School and Simpson Elementary, both in Gwinnett County, tied as the 7th District school showing the highest achievement as measured by being in the top ten percent in reading and mathematics assessment scores. Each of the schools will receive a grant from Georgia Natural Gas. I am extremely proud of the work being done at both of these schools and want to recognize Principal David Smith of Parkview High School and Principal Bron Gayna Schmit of Simpson Elementary School and their hard-working faculty and staff for their excellence in providing each and every student with a superior education and enabling each student to meet his or her full potential. These two schools are in the Gwinnett County School District, a national leader in education and winner of the 2010 Broad Prize for Public Education, an award a competitive, nationwide award given to one school district each year that exemplifies superior overall student and administrative performance.