Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time that I have yielded back. I would be happy to yield a portion of it to my friend.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for granting my unanimous consent request to reclaim my time. I do believe that we advantage all of our causes, rather than disadvantage them, by promoting debate. But I want to take issue, Mr. Speaker. I didn't mischaracterize anything. I read the media reporting. I will be the first--when you want to have the fake news conversation--there is too much fake news in this country--I will be happy to join you and have that debate with you. But I didn't mischaracterize a thing. I agree with what my friend had to say about Collin Peterson from Minnesota. He is a fabulous Member, who works as hard as he can on behalf of his constituents to get work done. Nothing in the article I read said Collin Peterson walked away from the table. Everything in the article I read said he was pressured by his Democratic colleagues to walk away from the table.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers remaining, so I am prepared to close when the gentleman from Massachusetts is, but I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from California I do not have any speakers remaining, and so I am prepared to close when she is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee and a subject matter expert on the Columbia River bill before us.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), the newest member of the Rules Committee, 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, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills: H.R. 4, which is the FAA Reauthorization Act, and a closed rule for H.R. 3144, which would adjust operations at the Federal Columbia River Power System. We are lucky today, Mr. Speaker, in that we will have Mr. Newhouse, who is an expert from Washington State on H.R. 3144, come down to the floor and talk extensively about that measure and why it is important for Washington State. But before we talk about Washington State, I want to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill as well. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, it is not every rule in every case we are able to make every Rules Committee member's amendment in order, but we are fortunate today that, during Mrs. Torres' very first rule on the House floor, we are making her amendment in order, which, again, Mr. Speaker, is one of those prerogatives of Rules Committee members. I know that in the first few moments of the FAA bill, Mr. Speaker, we are going to want to talk about the good work that went on in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It has really been my pleasure as not just a Rules Committee member, but as a Transportation and Infrastructure Committee member to be able to work on this bill now in two committees. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that we went not only through our initial hearings in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; we went through a summer markup last year. We have gone through five short-term extensions on FAA, and we are now here prepared to consider a full 5-year reauthorization on the floor. It has not been the easiest process. There have been a lot of folks who haven't gotten everything they have wanted in this process, but it has been a collaborative process, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad that we have it here today. I would be remiss if I didn't thank our committee chairman on the authorizing committee, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Shuster, for all the work that he has done. As you know, he has been a long champion of reforming the FAA, believing that we could get even more value for the American taxpayer dollars out of the FAA. While he did not achieve everything that he wanted to achieve in this bill either, Mr. Speaker, we have a dramatic step forward in H.R. 4 today. These things never happen by accident, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, and I want to thank all the folks who have been toiling behind the scenes in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee day in and day out. I am thinking of folks, Mr. Speaker, like Chris Vieson. I am thinking about folks like Naveen Rao. I am thinking about Hunter Presti and Brittany Smith. Mr. Speaker, even though he has left us to go, now, serve in the article II Federal Railroad Administration, I want to thank Matt Sturges, who was the former staff director there at the committee, for all he has done over 2 years to get us to this place. Mr. Speaker, as you know, getting this work done requires a collaborative working relationship, Members and staff across the aisle, from committee office staff to personal office staff, and it has really been a rewarding process. I am very proud of the product that we have on the floor today, but it wouldn't have been possible without all of the staff working and the collaboration that went on. I am grateful to folks for that. That is the authorizing committee side, Mr. Speaker. On the Rules Committee side, we had an equal amount of work going on. These past few days, moving this bill through the Rules Committee, the staff has had to work tirelessly, in large part, because of all the amendments that were offered to the bill. We now, in this rule, today, Mr. Speaker, made in order 116 different revisions to this bill. Let me say that again. We went through a complete, full, and open markup in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as you know, Mr. Speaker; but then, in the Rules Committee, we made in order an additional 116 amendments through this rule today: 56 of those are amendments sponsored by my Democratic colleagues; 36 of those are amendments sponsored by my Republican colleagues; and 24 of those are amendments that have bipartisan support here in this Chamber. That is just over 50 percent of all the ideas that were brought to the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker. I hope that my colleagues are as proud of that as I am. It reflects the commitment that Speaker Ryan made to having a more open and transparent process. Here, again: 56 Democratic amendments, 36 Republican amendments, and 24 bipartisan amendments. Mr. Speaker, this FAA bill is a good step towards bringing more value to the American taxpayer from the FAA, and this rule is a good step to making that possible. With the passage of this rule today, we will be able to move directly to that debate. Mr. Speaker, don't believe the headlines that say Congress has packed up its bags and gone home. I hear that day in and day out that folks think this 2018 is not going to be a particularly productive legislative session. I reject that. I reject that with no reservations whatsoever. I see the passion my friends on the Democratic side have for continuing to make improvements for the American people. I see that same passion on our side. Now, I am not saying we are not going to have some challenges keeping people focused on the process at hand, but this FAA bill is a good example of the fact that we are still hard at work, and there is still much work that we can do together. This bill, Mr. Speaker, finally delivers on the regulatory reform to the FAA certification process. Now, if you have any companies in your district that are involved in FAA regulations in any way, shape, or form, you know exactly what I am talking about. This certification process is going to allow companies all over the country, including many in my district, Mr. Speaker, like Meggitt in Suwanee, like Universal Avionics in Duluth, like Siemens in Cumming, Gulfstream in Savannah, and many others, to get safer, more innovative aviation products to market faster. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: safer products, more innovative products, more value to the American taxpayer to market faster. This bill also provides a pathway to regulatory certainty for unmanned aircraft systems. That allows companies like L3 Technologies and Colonial Pipeline in Alpharetta, like UPS in Sandy Springs, like our electric utilities in Gwinnett and Forsyth Counties, Mr. Speaker, and many other companies in my home State of Georgia to get their technologies out faster, to make environments safer for their employees and for my constituents. We all know that the transformative power of unmanned aviation is upon us. We have got to regulate that in a safe and responsible way to make sure that the rules are in place for certainty, for safety, and for opportunity for innovation. I believe we have that in this bill. We have a choice, Mr. Speaker. We are either going to lead the world in unmanned aviation or we are going to cede leadership to countries like China. I say we seize leadership, and we are seizing it here in this bill. The bill also commits that our airports--from the busiest airport in the world, Mr. Speaker, my hometown airport of Hartsfield-Jackson, the fourth busiest airport in the State; and also in my district, Mr. Speaker, is Briscoe Field in Lawrenceville--that these airports have access to long-term funding sustainability. We all know that yanking the pendulum back and forth on Federal funding does not serve any of our constituents' cause. Funding stability--knowing that they can count on the Federal Government to be their partner in providing innovation and improving the overall experience of those men and women who travel through these airports--is of vital importance. And finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill ensures that our American airlines--like my hometown airline of Delta--can compete and win against anyone on the planet in terms of the service, reliability, safety, and customer service that we have come to expect. Again, aviation is a partnership in this country, Mr. Speaker, between private sector actors and public actors. We need to do all that we can, from our end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to be the very best partners that we can. Of course, we can always do more, and I hope that we will continue to do more. I am expecting a very robust Transportation Committee cycle here over the next 9 months. But this bill today is a significant downpayment on our commitment to the American people to make our aviation infrastructure continue to be the very finest on the planet. Mr. Speaker, this rule that, again, will govern debate of both H.R. 4 and H.R. 3144 is a fair rule. These are both commonsense measures that will benefit the American people. I hope my colleagues will see that, I hope my colleagues will come to the floor and support this rule, and I hope my colleagues will also support the two underlying measures. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 839 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I say with no levity that we are absolutely thrilled to have Mrs. Torres on the Rules Committee, as she has already made a contribution. She is going to continue to make a wonderful contribution. I would say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from California, that sometimes setting expectations is the right way to find success in the things that we pursue in our lives. This FAA bill, I recognize her concerns that not every amendment was made in order. She is absolutely right. However, this bill did go through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where all of our transportation subject matter experts are supposed to be, and absolutely every amendment was considered in that transportation committee. Now it leaves the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where the subject matter experts are, and we have now made in order over 100 additional amendments brought from all across this House, more Democratic amendments made in order than Republican amendments made in order, but over 100 additional amendments made in order to try to perfect this bill. It may not be everything that folks would like to see, but I would share with the gentlewoman, Mr. Speaker, that from my brief Rules Committee experience, we are getting close to a high-water mark here, and I am going to try to take credit and share enthusiasm when we have an opportunity to do it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), for his insights on this legislation.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, with great optimism that we will return to the bill at hand, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I had a wonderful closing statement but, against that backdrop of collegiality, I will say only this. I did mention earlier that subject matter experts were assigned to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. My friend, Ms. Titus, is on that committee; I am on that committee. As a subject matter expert, my mom and dad come to me regularly to help them with their airline reservations, Delta Airlines, of course, being an Atlantan. But just recently, they were heading out to California; demanded that I make those reservations going into Ontario instead of LAX because, why in the world would anyone want to battle LAX when they could be in the Torres district there in Ontario? They were treated wonderfully and had a wonderful visit, so I recognize the gentlewoman's passion for her airport. Mr. Speaker, if you have an airport in your district, if you have aviation travelers in your district, you want the FAA to be reauthorized. This bill, this rule makes that possible. This bill gets that job done in an open, collaborative, and bipartisan way. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, support the underlying bills.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise, unexpectedly, on tax day. You probably woke up on Monday morning this week thinking Tuesday was going to be tax day, as most of America did, but, lo and behold, when the IRS' payment system crashes, suddenly we are now deeming today tax day rather than yesterday. While it is a surprise to be speaking on tax day, that collapse of the website sort of makes my point. I want to talk about the great successes that we have had working together, collaboratively, over the last 14 months to move the American Tax Code in the right direction, and then I want to talk about what we can do together to do even more. You may have seen some of the headlines in the Washington, D.C., tax rags today, Mr. Speaker, folks talking about the House Ways and Means Committee and how we are prepared to begin to do more. The Senate may be a little bit reluctant to do more. At some point, it is going to require an outpouring of public support to do more. Let me tell you what I mean by ``more.'' When we began the process of tax reform here in the House, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about tax reform first and tax cuts second, reform being that everyone knows that they have to pay taxes. Taxes are certain. But it doesn't have to be complicated. It doesn't have to be an additional burden. Writing the check is burdensome; figuring out how to calculate how much to write the check for doesn't have to be. But it has grown that way in this country, Mr. Speaker, and we set about trying to change that in the House. Now, I have a bill in the House called H.R. 25. It is the Fair Tax Act. It would actually take the American Tax Code and shift it, for the first time in 100 years, away from an income tax-based system and return it to the consumption tax-based system on which this country began. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you have looked at the numbers recently. We are the only OECD country that doesn't have a consumption tax. As you know, the power to tax is a power to destroy. If we want to get rid of something like cigarettes, we tax them in the hopes that there will be less of it. Well, by the same token, when we tax income, guess what. We send the incentive that there should be less of it. We tax productivity. The harder you work to feed your beautiful family, Mr. Speaker, the more that the American Government takes from you. You look at these young people coming out of college. They are trying to save for their future. They are trying to pay back those student loans. They are trying to make it all work by themselves for the very first time. The harder they work, the more hours they put in, the more we decide we are going to take right off the top. It doesn't have to be that way. Now, the tax cuts that we passed in December, Mr. Speaker, as you know, lower the American tax burden for the first time in a long time. In fact, a poll out recently said that fewer Americans believe they are overtaxed today, matching record low levels. I think that is a step in the right direction. I think that speaks to kind of the collective sigh of relief that you feel across the country among entrepreneurs and those who want to start their own business and families trying to put food on the table. I am glad that we have that collective sigh of relief, but can we do more? Today, we were talking about reforming the IRS, Mr. Speaker. I have got a list here--H.R. 5444, H.R. 5445, H.R. 2901, H.R. 5440, H.R. 5438, H.R. 5446, H.R. 5437, H.R. 5439, H.R. 5443--all bills that this House has considered this week designed to make the IRS serve the American taxpayer better. That is a long list of bills, Mr. Speaker, and that is worth celebrating. We took a big step this week in trying to make the IRS more responsive to the American people. Not to be a pessimist, Mr. Speaker, but when you have to share with this agency every penny you earn, everyplace that you earned it, share with them how you spent it, the places that you gave it, when you gave it, sometimes why you gave it, what you purchased with it, right on down the line, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that your wife may know less about your family finances than the IRS does. If not in your family, certainly in many families, we tell the IRS things we would not tell members of our family. We place an incredible amount of power and responsibility in the IRS' hands. And I want to be clear: This isn't an IRS institutional problem. The IRS didn't ask for this authority. This is a 435-Members-of-the- U.S.-House problem. We put this authority in the IRS' hands. We gave them an untenable task of wielding this power without abuse. That is why you have almost a dozen bills, Mr. Speaker, today to reform them. Making those reforms is important, but is there a better way? Do we have to have the IRS involved in every aspect of our financial life? I am here to tell you that the answer is no. H.R. 25, the Fair Tax Act, Mr. Speaker, moves us to a consumption tax, which says that we are going to tax you based on what you spend, not on what you earn. So I no longer need to tell the IRS what I earned, where I earned it, and how I spent it. When I get taxed on what I spend, I am not sending that information to the IRS. I am getting taxed while I am at the store. I am getting taxed at Home Depot. I am getting taxed at Kroger. I am getting taxed at Publix. I am getting taxed at Macy's. I am getting taxed on amazon.com. When we tax based on what people consume instead of what they earn, we end that disincentive to earn, and we begin to ask that people ask more serious questions about what they purchase. Mr. Speaker, today, as American workers are going off to produce high-quality American goods, they are doing so at a disadvantage. Most nations, as I mentioned earlier, have a consumption tax, which means that, when the Germans produce an automobile and they send it to America, they have a consumption tax--a value added tax, in their case--that had been taxed on that car that had been sold in Germany. Since they are shipping it to America, they remove that tax and send that car to America tax free. We pay taxes on it when we purchase it. Not so when the American car goes to Germany. The big BMW plant in South Carolina producing BMWs, when that car is produced, all of the embedded taxation of the corporate taxes BMW is paying and the payroll taxes BMW workers are paying, all of those taxes are built into the price of that BMW. When we ship it out for sale to the rest of the world, the price of that car is higher because Americans built it. That is just nonsense. Why in the world have we chosen to disadvantage ourselves relative to the rest of the world? Well, when you choose to have an income tax and when you choose to have a payroll tax, you then choose to bury those costs in the price of your goods and services. It is a competitive disadvantage of America. I mentioned payroll taxes, Mr. Speaker. You may not know, but payroll taxes are the largest tax that 85 percent of American families pay. Let me say that again. We just had this whole long debate over reforming the income tax system, and it was an important debate to have. We had this whole debate about how it is we can provide more money in workers' paychecks by changes to the income tax system. It was an important debate to have. But 85 percent of American families pay more in payroll taxes-- that FICA tax you see, it is 15.3 percent of everything that you earn-- pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. So the time is going to come that we are going to have to gather here, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber to have a debate about how we reform the payroll tax system. The payroll tax system is very important. It funds Social Security and Medicare. We want those programs to be successful. We know that as we sit here today, the revenue streams are not sufficient to make those programs successful. So if you believe in those programs, we need to have those conversations today about the Fair Tax, Mr. Speaker, the only tax bill in Congress that examines the payroll tax as the lead reform mechanism of tax reform. We went in and we changed the corporate tax system in the tax cuts bill last year, Mr. Speaker, and we did a good job there. We took it from being the absolute worst Tax Code on the planet in terms of competitiveness and we moved America to about the top five. That is good news. Not worst to first, but worst to top five. I will take it. When Ronald Reagan and the Democrats did tax reform back in 1986, they then moved America from worst to first. In the intervening 30 years, the rest of the world caught up with America, surpassed America, moved us back into last place. We moved ourselves last December into the top five. My question is, Mr. Speaker, when did it become an American value, when did American exceptionalism begin to be defined by being in the top five, one of the folks out in front? My definition of American exceptionalism is being number one, being the very best, setting the standard, letting the rest of the world follow. The Fair Tax encompasses that by recognizing that businesses don't pay taxes. They just collect taxes. They collect them from their employees in the form of lower wages, they collect them from their customers in the form of higher prices, they collect them from the owners of capital in the form of lower returns to pension plans for American retirees, but businesses don't pay taxes. There is no secret drawer that a business dips into to pay its tax bill. It is lower wages, higher prices, or lower rates of return. Well, recognizing this, and we did a lot of recognizing of that during this tax reform debate, we have now lowered the corporate tax rate to the lowest rate in my lifetime. The question is, now that we are seeing the benefits of that, we are seeing money plowed back into workers' paychecks, we are seeing wages rise--and we are not having the discussion of minimum wage here anymore, Mr. Speaker, because businesses across the country can't find enough employees, they are raising wages on their own, they are putting bonuses out there on their own. Those businesses have more money in their pockets and they are putting it in the pockets of their employees. There is not a business in your district, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't recognize the most important asset that business has is a motivated and loyal workforce. Employees are the most valuable asset that a business has. Those employees are rewarded when the business succeeds. Why is it that now that we are seeing that, now that we are recognizing that, we see the reality that when you put more money back in the business, that business puts more money back in a paycheck, why don't we go the rest of the way? Why don't we move America back from worst to first one more time, abolish that corporate income tax, recognize that businesses don't pay taxes, they just collect them from their employees? That reduction of corporate income taxes so far, Mr. Speaker, has led to bonuses for more than 4 million American workers, wages rising across the board at the highest level in years, unemployment at a sustained level lower than ever before recorded. Mr. Speaker, the Tax Code is one of those things that people can use to pick winners and losers, and an income Tax Code particularly lends itself to pick winners and losers. The Fair Tax says let's not pick winners and losers; let's have one rate that everybody pays on everything that they buy. Let's recognize that consumption is a better form of taxation than income is, again, as the only OECD country that does not have a consumption tax, and let us recognize that there is even more economic growth that we can squeeze out of the American economy today. You have seen the capital investment that comes from the immediate expensing that was included in the last tax bill, Mr. Speaker. Well, immediate expensing is the same as not taxing that investment at all. It is what I am saying. Instead of just being for some purchases, for some investments, it would be for all purchases, for all investments. We gave businesses that benefit in December. Four million workers and counting have received bonuses, wages rising faster than they have in years. What about repatriated earnings, Mr. Speaker? How are we advantaged as a Nation by trapping earnings overseas? If a company can't bring its earnings back to America to invest in America, what is it going to do? If those earnings are trapped overseas, they are going to get invested overseas, they are going to build that next plant overseas, they are going to make that next purchase overseas. How in the world are we advantaged as a Nation by trapping earnings overseas? Well, we recognized that we are not. We recognized that by lowering the repatriation rate, we have brought back trillions of dollars. That return to America is continuing, but we can do more. That corporate rate going to zero does more. The Tax Code is the only regulatory action we take, Mr. Speaker, that disadvantages America relative to the rest of the world for no benefit whatsoever. Let us concede that we have bills to pay as a Nation and we are going to raise the revenue to pay those bills. Now, having conceded that we are going to raise the revenue to pay those bills, let's raise that revenue in the simplest, least economically destructive way possible: a consumption tax. Milton Friedman would tell it. If you don't believe Nobel laureate economists, you can look at State experiments across the country. If you don't believe those State experiments, you can look at changing tax codes in our neighboring countries around the world, our allies around the world. We have a choice in how we collect revenue, and H.R. 25, the Fair Tax Act, is the most comprehensive recognition that we can do away with the income tax, we can repeal the 16th Amendment that even made the income tax possible in this country. We can return to a consumption tax so that we all have skin in the game in how this government is run and operated. We can ensure the solvency of Social Security and Medicare by changing the way we collect the revenue stream for those programs. We can put more money in workers' pockets by eliminating the largest tax that 85 percent of American families pay in eliminating that FICA tax. We can put America back on top economically, as we tried to do in 1986, as we saw happen during the 1990s as a result of those Tax Code changes, and we can return America to being an exporter to the world, not just an importer from the world. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have that debate. If someone believes that disadvantaging the American worker is valuable in some way, let's talk about it. If someone sees a hidden benefit to making it harder for the rest of the world to buy American goods, let's talk about it and let me understand those benefits with you. But if you share my vision of American exceptionalism, that being in the top five isn't good enough, that being number one, being the leader, being the definer of success is the only thing that is going to be good enough for the families that each and every one of us represent, then go back and look at H.R. 25 one more time. I understand, having just passed tax reform, the largest tax reform in a generation, folks wonder if we are able to do even more. We can. I understand that having this tax day to be the very last tax day that any American family has to deal with the old, complicated code, folks wonder, can we do even better for next tax year. We have already done better for next tax year, Mr. Speaker, but we can do even more. Take a look at the Fair Tax. Dozens upon dozens of your colleagues have already recognized its merits. Dozens upon dozens of your colleagues have already recognized our opportunity to stop fighting the economic battle with one arm tied behind the American worker's back. I celebrate the success that we achieved together, Mr. Speaker. I celebrate the coming together in the name of making a better economy possible for American workers and their families. Let's take that success and let's build on that success, and let's not have this be the last tax day that we celebrate. Let's celebrate today that we will never have to deal with the old Tax Code again, and let's anticipate that day where we will never even have tax day again, because in the absence of an income tax, the American family need never deal with the IRS again. Let's eliminate April 15 as tax day. Let's make it just another beautiful spring day. Let's relieve the American family of the burden of complying with the Tax Code. Let's free the American family and American businesses to do what is in their own family's and their own business' best interest. Make tax day just another day, Mr. Speaker. Support the Fair Tax. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition. I thank my chairman for bringing this resolution to the floor. I confess I don't have the kind of speechwriter working for me that my friend from Maryland has. He has always had the gift of prose. I come completely unarmed with clever prose. I have just got some facts on my side. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, and you have been here long enough to see it, there has been a little bit of truth on both sides of the aisle today. There is a little bit of frustration that folks say: Hey. How come it is true that we are bringing up a balanced budget amendment in the days after we have just passed a bill that is the largest spending bill that I have seen since I have been in the United States Congress? I think that is a legitimate concern. I think it is a legitimate concern. Now, I come to the other side of aisle, and folks say: It is because we just passed that spending bill that we have to talk about balanced budget amendments again. Why? Because the House did its work, as all my colleagues recall. The House did its work underneath the budget caps, on time, before the end of the fiscal year, in the same fiscally responsible way that I have seen this body act over and over and over again in the 7 years I have been here. Then that bill went across to the United States Senate, where Republicans don't control 60 votes, and it became a partnership bill. And the frustration that I have heard on both sides of the aisle about the level of spending in that bill happened for one reason, and one reason only: because Democrats voted ``yes,'' and Republicans voted ``yes,'' and a majority of the Congress acted. What this balanced budget amendment says, Mr. Speaker--and you have read it, and if any Members haven't, it is only 3 pages long, so it is easy to digest--it says: Listen. Spend as much money as you want to. For all the challenges that my friend from Maryland just recognized, and they are coming again--for folks who believe economic cycles are over, I have bad news. Economic cycles are still in effect. The laws of the economy are still in place, and we are going to have down cycles again. What this resolution says is, if you want to buy something, agree to pay for it. It seems fair. If you want to spend something in the name of helping your children, pay for it out of your bank account instead of mortgaging your children's future to pay for it. I think that seems fair. And the truth is, Mr. Speaker, you know how culture is. Culture is hard to change. For the first 200 years of our Republic, the men and women who ran this Chamber, Republicans, Democrats, they didn't borrow against the Nation's credit card except in times of war. As you know, it is only at the end of World War II where we saw levels of debt at the size that they are today. But something has happened culturally in my lifetime where we decided that the responsible thing to do was to spend but not tax. That is not the responsible thing to do. It is not a responsible liberal thing to do. It is not a responsible conservative thing to do. Now, Mr. Speaker, you have heard over and over again talk about the big tax cut that happened last year for America. I am glad that happened for America. I am seeing bonuses in paychecks in my constituency back home. I am seeing new businesses open. I am going to more ribbon cuttings. I see excitement and optimism on Main Street in ways I haven't seen it in years. I am excited about that. To my friend from Maryland's point, that is what he referenced in the Clinton administration. There in the 1990s, Mr. Speaker, we didn't cut a penny in spending. You remember. Congress spent more and more and more and more. But America was enjoying such a great economic boom, all of that money folks were making, turns out you can't pay your income taxes if you are not making an income. Folks were making more money. They were sending more money to the Federal Government. That is how the budget came to balance. Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 years, after the tax cut--after the tax cut--CBO has just projected tax revenues are going to increase by more than 60 percent. I will say that again. For folks who want to do more in America, tax revenues are going to increase by 60 percent. The only way, then, we will run a budget deficit is if folks want to spend even more than 60 percent, more than we are spending today. And guess what, Mr. Speaker. They do. Nobody likes to be lectured in this institution, certainly not by folks who they don't believe have credibility on the issue. And we have heard the word ``hypocritical'' time and time again on the floor, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that is true. But my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle will remember our budget process. What I love about the Budget Committee, my friend Ms. Jayapal, we serve there together, and we have amazing opportunities to talk. Candidly, it is not as collegial as either one of us would like. We shed a whole lot more heat and a lot less light than either one of us would like on that committee. But when we had an opportunity to bring all of our ideas to the floor of the House, every single Democratic plan for Federal spending raised taxes by trillions and reached balanced budgets never in the 10-year window. That is just a fact. It is okay because we are talking about priorities and where we invest our money, and folks prioritized investments over a balanced budget. That is fair. Now, on the Republican side of the aisle, every single budget that came to the floor cut taxes and balanced budgets within a 10-year window. That reflects our priorities. We believe in balanced budgets. We believe in cutting taxes. On the other side of the aisle, folks believe in investments. They believe in borrowing today so we can get greater returns tomorrow. Those are perfectly legitimate conversations to have. But, Mr. Speaker, my frustration is this. What my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has brought before us today is a simple resolution that says: Put out your best ideas and let the best idea win; but do not, do not, do not mortgage your children's future because you lack the courage today to pay for it. We just increased spending on NIH by $3 billion, Mr. Speaker--$3 billion. We are going to do amazing things together as a nation, things that are going to make every American family proud. Cures for diabetes, for Parkinson's, for Alzheimer's. We are going to move the needle for generations to come. We did that together. We both agreed that was an investment that was worth making. But we are $21 trillion in the hole, Mr. Speaker. There are a bundle of ideas that we can use together to attack that challenge. This is but one, and it is the one we have before us today. I would just ask my colleagues, recognize that there is more that unites us in our drive and desire to do what is best for the American people than that divides us. Recognize that we all want what is best for America. If you don't believe in balanced budgets, fair enough, but let's not deride the Judiciary Committee, which has been working on this issue not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, but for years. This isn't the first time we have had this conversation. We missed it by one vote during the Clinton era. This is something that can bring America together and not divide America. I know this: If we do not come together, Mr. Speaker, come together with the votes required for a constitutional amendment, come together for the votes required to make a courageous change in the direction of Federal spending, it will be to all of our detriments, and sadly, not just our detriments, but to the detriments of our children and our grandchildren as well. I believe we have a Chamber full of men and women who want to do the right thing for the right reasons, Mr. Speaker. This is a great way to start today. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me both the time and for providing the leadership to make this resolution available.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on the committee. It seems like I just saw him a couple of hours ago, but only because I just saw him a couple of hours ago. Mr. Speaker, you know as well as anyone that it is hard to get things done around here. It is never made any easier by the recriminations that circulate so widely. I appreciate the Speaker's admonition about engaging in conflicts of personality. This is hard. This isn't the bill I would have voted for. In fact, it is not the bill I voted for the first time around. When this House did its job 9 months ago, when it was supposed to do its job, we voted on a completely different bill. But as my friend from Massachusetts knows full well, Mr. Speaker, if Republicans had 60 votes in the Senate, we wouldn't be going through these machinations. We go through these machinations for one reason and one reason only, and that is, after a Republican-led House gets its work done, the Senate can't. The Senate can't because they work in a much more bipartisan way. As bipartisan as this institution is, that institution is even more so by the Senate rules. We talk about this as if it is a spending bill, Mr. Speaker. I just want to be clear: this includes brownfields act reauthorization. That is the bill that lets us go into environmentally damaged areas and restore them. We haven't been able to get that done just in the normal course of doing business. So to get it across the Senate floor, it is now added into this bill. The Child Protection Improvement Act, Mr. Speaker, is the bill that provides the database so that caregivers and parents can go and see who it is that is taking care of their children and make sure folks are properly vetted. We couldn't get that through in the normal process, so we had to add it into this bill. Mr. Speaker, the CLOUD Act is the bill that allows law enforcement to go and access information stored on clouds in other countries so that you don't have to wait 9 months through bureaucracies so that you can identify those terrorists, those criminals, earlier and more often. We couldn't get that through the regular process, so we have got that in the bill. E-Verify, Mr. Speaker, is the provision that allows any employer to dial in online to make sure that they are hiring American citizens. It is buried in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Together, we are getting things done. This bill is an example of that. It is a source of progress, not an impediment.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, you know that he may call himself a freshman, but Mr. Ferguson--Dr. Ferguson has made his weight felt around here since day one. He ran on a commonsense platform that said: Dadgummit, let's just go and get something done. Let's go and make a difference. Let's stop fussing about it. Let's start doing something about it. He has developed a reputation as a doer, and I am proud to serve with him. I appreciate him putting together this opportunity tonight. Mr. Speaker, we talk about tax reform as if it is a line item somewhere. The truth is that it is a feeling. It is a collective sigh of relief that has gone on in every single congressional district represented here. We have all gotten those calls. I got one just the other day, Mr. Speaker, from a father whose adult daughter had fallen on hard times and has a tough time making the bills work. As someone who had been strapped for the last, 6, 7, 8 years, he was trying to figure out how he was going to help his daughter make the bill balance when he wound up with $1,000 bonus from one of our local employers. It came at exactly the right time to make a difference in his family's life. It is that collective sigh of relief that better days are coming tomorrow than we had yesterday. I have heard it from the biggest companies in the district and I have heard it from the smallest companies in the district. The Home Depot is a proud Georgia company. My friend, Mr. Loudermilk mentioned it is headquartered in his district. We have got about seven stores in my district and a distribution facility in our district. Mr. Speaker, $1,000 bonuses from The Home Depot went not to their upper- level management employees, but to their rank-and-file hourly employees at the store. That is real money in somebody's pocket back home. Now, that's just the kind of company that Home Depot is. We remember that during the economic crisis, when folks were cutting back on everything to try to make the books balance. They kept that program going on Saturday mornings, where you could come out with your kids, where you could build a birdhouse together, where you could build a train together, where you could come together as a family. Even when you didn't have enough dollars to go to a ball game, you could come to your local Home Depot and be present with your children. That is the kind of company they are. Same thing with UPS. My friend from Georgia knows, UPS has a proud tradition. We won them over from Connecticut. Years ago, Oz Nelson made that decision. Folks in UPS brown, 1,700 employees in my district, are getting bonuses because UPS now has more money to go around. Now, all the money didn't go into bonuses. Let's be clear, it didn't. UPS put $5 billion in their pension fund. Mr. Speaker, how many times have we talked about pension funds being underfunded in this country and wanting somebody to do something about it? UPS got some extra dollars and they put those dollars in the pension fund for their employees. They announced last month, Mr. Speaker, 14 additional 747 purchases. Now, Boeing is not headquartered in my district, but if you live in Washington State or you live in South Carolina, the news that 14 more planes are going to be purchased means something to those families, to those suppliers, to those subcontractors. Four new 767s being purchased as a result of extra money that wasn't coming to the Federal Government that is, instead, being reinvested. My friend from Georgia said it best: companies are now, for the first time in a long time, making decisions based on what is best for them, for their customers, for their employees, and for their communities. Mr. Speaker, we can argue about what kind of public policy we should have, but can't we agree that one where we are prioritizing people and communities first is one that we can all be proud of? I was pleased to support the bill. I am pleased to be down here with my friend from Georgia tonight talking about the impacts. I am grateful both to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and to my friend from Georgia, for your leadership on this tax reform issue, for making it possible.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, these are small businesses that want to do their very best to comply with the ADA. With guidance, they will be successful in that effort.