Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL. But you ask the all important question, I say to my friend. Why not take the rate to zero? Why are we arguing about whether it ought to be 25 or 23? I just quoted the President of the United States. He said, let's make America the most competitive place in the world to do business. Well, if we were to lower it to 10, maybe somebody else is going to lower it to 9. If we lower it to 8, maybe somebody else lowers it to 7. What if we take it to zero? And I have voiced my concern that, well, if you take it to zero, that means I, as the American consumer, have to pay all the taxes because corporations won't be paying taxes anymore. And what my friend, who has years and years, decades and decades of experience in the private sector says is, there's no secret drawer where American businesses get the money to pay taxes. I go out and I buy a Coca-Cola. Where does Coca-Cola get the money to pay taxes? They charge it to me in the price of the product. My friend is saying that the only taxpayer in America today is the American consumer. There is no other taxpayer. Businesses don't pay taxes--people pay taxes, whether it's the CEO of that business who has a high salary and he pays taxes on his salary, whether it's the consumer of that business who pays in a higher price, or whether it's the shareholder of that business who pays through lower dividends and lower rates of return. Why not take the corporate tax rate to zero so we will be the most competitive economy in the world? I yield to my friend.

Mr. WOODALL. Why not take it to zero? Well, I'll tell you what I might hear back home, I say to my friend. And what do you want to do? Do you want to give business a free pass? Because my understanding is there are only two places we can get taxes. We can either take them from me or we can take them from McDonald's. And wouldn't I rather tax McDonald's than tax me?

Mr. WOODALL. As Coca-Cola is spread out all over the world, where they happen to have their corporate headquarters in Atlanta, but for how long? But for how long? We talk so much about trying to grow jobs in America. What about just trying to keep the jobs that we've got? What about just trying to make it a joy to do business in America instead of making it a hassle to do business in America? You might not believe this, Mr. Speaker, but this is a $10 haircut I just got over the weekend. You probably think I paid a lot more than that for this haircut. But as you think about what the gentleman from Iowa said about where costs are hidden, where taxes are hidden, I paid $10 for this haircut. But Derek, my barber, he had to pay 15.3 percent in self-employment taxes. So $1.50 of that $10 went straight to the Federal Government in self-employment taxes. Now he's a good barber, so I suspect he is in higher than the 15 percent tax bracket, but let's just say for the sake of argument, he's in the 15 percent income tax bracket. So out of my $10 haircut, he had to take a $1.50 right off the bat and send it to the government in self-employment taxes, then take another $1.50 right off the bat and send it to the Federal Government in income taxes. So for the $10 haircut he charged me, he's only taking home $7 to feed his wife and kids. So is it a $10 hair cut, or is it a $7 haircut? What we tell Americans is, oh, we're going to lower your tax burden. But what we've done is to hide that tax burden in the cost of everything we buy because if Derek didn't have to pay those $3, he'd be charging me $7 for a haircut, and he would still take $7 home to feed his kids. To have an honest discussion about what kind of spending we ought to do in this place, I think we have to bring all of those hidden taxes out of price. Not only does it make us more competitive, as you suggested, but it makes it possible for us as Americans to have an honest discussion about is government doing too little or is government doing too much. And I think, as you suggested the studies suggest, it's about 22 percent of the cost of everything that we buy, on average, that is hidden taxes that we think we're getting away with, but that we are actually paying at the checkout counter.

Mr. WOODALL. Well, I would say to my friend, you talk about cultural transformation, I would tell you that transformation is actually taking us back to that entrepreneurial, self-reliant experience that America began as a Nation. This business of hiding taxes and trying to make people think they're getting something for nothing, that's a relatively new experience in American culture, and it has transformed this country. I'm big on saying you've got to have skin in the game. To make good decisions you have to have skin in the game. Right now, 50 percent of the American population isn't paying any income taxes. They don't think they have skin in the game. Now, they do because they're paying tax in all of these hidden consumption opportunities that you and I are talking about, but they vote as if they're getting something for free. And as a Nation, if we're going to make responsible decisions-- particularly as it comes to borrowing from our children and our grandchildren--we have to let Americans know what they are really paying for the size and scope of government. And that's not to say they can't say, I understand how much I'm paying and I'm willing to pay even more, or I hate how much I'm paying and I'm going to pay less. But it will absolutely bring us away from a culture that believes there is a free lunch and back to a culture that understands that decisions have consequences and that there is no taxpayer in America except for we, the American consumers.

Mr. WOODALL. I'm happy to yield.

Mr. WOODALL. If the gavel is in the air, I'll just say to the Speaker, if you needed more information, Mr. Speaker, you could find it at www.fairtax.org, or you could visit my Web page at Woodall.house.gov. This really does speak to the challenges of America. I thank the Speaker for the time, and I thank my friend from Iowa.

Mr. WOODALL. Taking it to zero?

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, this is my first time down here as a freshman during Special Orders, my first time trying to coordinate charts and talk the talk and walk the walk all at the same time. But I'm excited about it because I'm down here to talk about the Fair Tax. And if folks don't know what the Fair Tax is, it's H.R. 25. You can find it at www.thomas.gov, that site that everybody should have bookmarked if you care about what goes on here on the House floor. Because if you don't know, everything that goes on here is available in realtime at www.thomas.gov. It's done through the Library of Congress. It's not a Republican thing or a Democrat thing. It's just the real deal, what's actually happening down here. And if you go and you look up H.R. 25, it's the Fair Tax. What the Fair Tax is is a bill that repeals all income-based Federal taxes and replaces them with consumption-based taxes. Now, my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) was just down here on the House floor, Mr. Speaker. He was talking about our Founding Fathers and those things that were happening between 1776 and 1787. And in that time, we funded all the Federal Government with consumption taxes--it was not income taxes; it was consumption taxes--under the theory that if you had enough resources to go out and buy that silver tea set from England, then you had enough resources to help fund the Republic. And if you spent all your time working on your farm, and you just barely had enough money to buy thread at the local five-and-dime, then we weren't going to tax you as heavily. If you look at this poster, Mr. Speaker, in 1913, right before the income tax began, we had 400 pages of Tax Code in America. Just the last century, in the 1900s, 400 pages of Tax Code and regulations. By World War II, that 400 pages had grown to 8,000 pages, 20 times as much Tax Code by the end of World War II. By the time we were in Korea, 14,000 pages of code and regulation. By the 1970s, 19,000 pages of code and regulation. And in the 1980s, 26,300 pages of Tax Code and regulation. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm a reader. I love to sit down and educate myself through the written word; but I have to tell you, 26,000 pages of Tax Code and regulation is going to make a criminal out of all of us because you can't possibly understand all of the ramifications of the tax consequences of your decision. Do you remember 1986? That was the last time we fundamentally overhauled the Tax Code. 1986. In fact, if you go to www.Thomas.gov, like I suggested, and you look at the laws and regulations, you'll see the Tax Code of 1986. It was the Tax Code of 1954, updated Tax Code to 1986. That was the last time we flattened rates and broadened the basis. Flattened the rates and broadened the base. And where did we end up? Between 1984 when we had 26,000 pages of Tax Code and regulation, we went through this process of simplifying the income tax, and 10 years later in 1995, we have 40,000 pages of Tax Code. By simplifying the income tax, we grew it from 26,000 pages to 40,000 pages. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you're like me, you go out and you shop around. Are you going to use the H&R Block tax software? Are you going to use the Microsoft tax software? What kind of tax software are you going to use, because you hate paying accountants to do your taxes for you. You know, I used to just sit down with a pen and paper and do it myself. I used to go through with my calculator and do it myself, but it has gotten too complicated. Why? Because since I have reached the age of majority in 1988, here we have 1995 when I'm coming out of college, between 1995 and 2004, we added another 20,000 pages to the Tax Code, from 40,000 pages to 60,000 pages. In 2007, to 67,000 pages; 2008 kept it to just a little over 67,000 pages. And in 2009, it jumped another 3,000 pages; 70,000 pages of tax legislation. And to be clear, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about tax legislation, we're talking about the ways in which the government separates you and me and all of the American people from our paycheck. That's all there is in the Tax Code. All the Tax Code is, is how do we separate the American people from their productivity? It takes 70,000 pages in 2009 to sort that out. And 71,000 pages in 2010. And now, 72,000 pages of Tax Code in 2011. Folks, what the FAIR Tax does, H.R. 25, it asks the question that if we could start from scratch--and by scratch I mean from the 72,000 pages that we do today, to just a blank sheet of paper--if you could start from scratch and draft the Tax Code that America ought to have instead of the one that has been forced upon us, what would you do? What would you do? Well, there's a lot of difference of opinion on what to do, but simplification seems to be one of those things that we can all agree on. You know, I didn't come to this House to try to be a good Republican. I came to this House to try to be a good American, and there are lots of opportunities to do that. I like to think those things occur simultaneously more often than not. But look at what folks are saying about the United States Tax Code. I'll quote House minority leader Nancy Pelosi: Any tax reform and closing of loopholes, which is really important for us to do as a sense of fairness, must also reduce the deficit. Right, because if you close the loopholes, if you close all of the lobbyist-funded loopholes, close all of the special exemptions and exceptions and carve-outs, by definition it brings in more money. Mr. Speaker, did you get the free golf cart in the 2009 tax bill? Does anyone want to admit to having gotten the free golf cart? In 2009, in the name of a good energy bill, in the name of green energy, we in the wisdom here in the U.S. House and across the way in the United States Senate, of course I wasn't here at that time, but in our wisdom we created a tax credit, a $6,500 tax credit if you would go out and buy an electric vehicle. Well, Americans are smart, and I love that about America. We are ingenious folks. And what folks figured out was that the $6,500 that folks were giving them if they'd go out and buy an electric vehicle, if you put brake lights, seat belts and side view mirrors on your golf cart, you could get yourself a free golf cart. Well, it turns out, because we produce golf carts in the great State of Georgia, you couldn't actually get an American golf cart for $6,500. But our friends in China were willing to import a golf cart to America for $6,500, Mr. Speaker. And so in the fall of 2009 and the spring of 2010, the IRS had to release guidance--hear this, Mr. Speaker--the IRS had to release guidance that said when we first crafted the free golf cart regulations, we said you actually had to have delivery of the cart by December 31. But so many Americans are trying to avail themselves of the free golf cart provision that we're going to change the rules here in late December and say really all you need is a VIN number from the manufacturer, and that'll give them several more months to fill all the orders. Really, Mr. Speaker? Is that what we need in the Tax Code, a Tax Code that distributes free golf carts to folks who likely didn't even want a golf cart but it was free, and so they availed themselves of it? Nancy Pelosi agrees with me that we need to get rid of those loopholes. Senate majority leader Harry Reid: Our tax system is broken and needs to be fixed. Let's take the poll, Mr. Speaker. Let's go to the most liberal Democrat in the House, to the most conservative Republican in the House, who doesn't agree with majority leader Harry Reid? Our tax system is broken and needs to be fixed. And we have the ability to start with a blank sheet of paper and make it the way we want to make it. Listen to our President, Mr. Speaker. This is President Barack Obama: You've got too many companies ending up making decisions based on what their tax director says instead of what their engineer designs or factories produce, and that puts our entire economy at a disadvantage. That's true. Talk to any small business owner, find anybody who's at a CFO or CEO level in a business close to you and ask that question: Are you making business decisions, or are you making tax decisions? And every single time they make a tax decision instead of a business decision, America loses. Their shareholders may win in the short term. Profits may gain in the short term. But when we in America decide we're going to do something to comply with these ridiculous 75,000 pages of Tax Code, instead of doing what's best for business, instead of what's best for customers, instead of what makes sense, America loses. And in these challenging economic times, we cannot lose that productivity. Let me go back to President Barack Obama. He says this: We need to make America the best place on Earth to do business. The Tax Code is a barrier government can remove, a burdensome corporate Tax Code with one of the highest rates in the world. Hear that. We talk so much about Republicans and Democrats. Here, common sense coming from the President of the United States: We need to make America the best place on Earth to do business. A barrier government can remove is a burdensome corporate Tax Code with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Folks, that's agreement. I will tell you, if I had to characterize him, Mr. Speaker, I would tell you that the President sits a little further to the left than I do. If I had to characterize my own voting record, I'd say I sit a little further to the right than most folks here in this House. But this is common is ground that we can all agree on. Let me just show you what that tax rate is. I hope the colors are showing up, Mr. Speaker, for folks back in their offices watching on TV because the red line here is the U.S. corporate tax rate. The blue line is the OECD average excluding the U.S. Now the OECD is that group of developed nations around the world, those folks that we would say have free economies and growing economies. This chart goes back to 1981. It goes back to the beginning of the Reagan era. You see America's corporate tax rate higher than the average tax rate in the rest of the world. This is that tax reform that I talked about in 1986 where you see the tax rate dramatically drop-- dramatically drop--and for a short period of time, Mr. Speaker, we became, on the red line, more productive and more competitive with the rest of the world as the rest of the world was on the blue line. And look at those years. Do you remember those years--1988, 1989, 1990? Do you remember those productive years? I think that's when the yuppie label came around and folks were buying all their fancy automobiles and the first of the big houses. I was just coming of age in that time, but I remember the conspicuous consumption. And why? Because America was creating wealth. And then what happened? Here's the tax increase of the Clinton years, bumps right up there, and you see a flat line of American corporate taxation at about 39 percent, that flat red line of corporate taxation. Fair enough. I prefer predictability. I think we ought to know the direction things are going, and I think we ought to be able to plan to make business decisions. Here is a very predictable line of corporate taxation. But what's the rest of the world doing? While America has a very predictable 39 percent tax rate, what's the rest of the world doing? Getting lower and lower and lower. Lower and lower and lower and lower. Folks, do you know who can't leave America? The American worker. Folks in my district. They can't leave. Capital can leave. A click of a mouse and you can take a billion dollars and move it overseas. If you have a business in America, you can pack up your bags and go. I talk to CEOs every day who do exactly that. They say, Rob, it's just not worth it doing business in America. Why? Because we're not competitive. Do you want to talk about growing jobs? Mr. Speaker, let's talk about keeping the jobs that we've already got. I see in the Chamber my friend from Iowa, Mr. Steve King, who has struggled with these issues firsthand and who I know understands as a small businessman before he came to this House what it means to be out there trying to make payroll and trying to stay competitive. And if the gentleman would indulge me, what do you think it would mean for jobs in America if we got this U.S. corporate tax rate line below that world average, if we, once again, made it competitive to build jobs in America?

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend. You're absolutely right. When I talk to young people--I try to get out to the middle schools and high schools in my district every week when we have time back home--I say, I've got a $10-an-hour job in my congressional office. Who wants to come to work for me? Who wants to come to work for me? And I just gave a powerful presentation about how you can come here and return America to its foundational roots. All the hands go up. And I say, now, just to be clear, though, we're going to have to put a $9 income tax on that $10 an hour, so you're only going to be able to take home $1 at the end of the day. Now, who wants to come work 80 hours a week for me? And all of the hands go down. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and we use that power here. With all due respect to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the Fair Tax that I supported--that you were such a strong supporter of--it has detractors on both sides of the aisle, because what the Fair Tax says is we're not going to manipulate your behavior through the Tax Code anymore. Because the Tax Code allows us to say, if you buy wool sweaters, we're going to give you a tax credit; if you buy polyester sweaters, we're going to take taxes away from you. If you go out and buy Levi's jeans, we're going to give you a tax credit; if you go out and buy Lee jeans, we're going to take taxes away from you. Over and over and over again we decide who's supposed to win and who's supposed to lose, and we punish or reward the American people and the American small business environment through the Tax Code. And what you and I have said in the Fair Tax is, I don't want that power in Washington. I give that power back to the American people. You choose what kind of jeans you want to wear. You choose what kind of sweater you want to buy. You choose whether you want a golf cart or not. We are not in the business of picking winners and losers. We're in the business of raising as little revenue as is necessary to run this Federal Government. And that takes power away from this body right here. And it is only those folks who believe that the American people are still smarter than you and I are who want to return that power. And I thank you for being my partner in that.

Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it's always nice to come to the House floor after someone has just said ``God bless America.'' It makes me feel good, sir, and I want to associate myself with those remarks. Candidly, I'm a little worried about what happens here in this country. Mr. Speaker, I know you have the pleasures I do of seeing all the folks from across America who come here to see the procedures that go on here on the House floor, and I know folks often wonder and probably ask you, Mr. Speaker, Where is everybody? What's going on? Well, of course, with the exception of those of us on the House floor, everybody is in their office watching on the closed-circuit TV so you can multitask and do it all. I came down here to bring words to those folks who are watching on TV. But really, Mr. Speaker, it's about the youngest folks we have in the country. It's about the economy that you and I are going to leave to the next generation of Americans. And we can do things here in this House today that guarantee a better economy in the years to come. Right now--right now--I don't tweet. I don't use Twitter. I'm not that interesting that I have something to say to folks every moment of the day, but if I were tweeting, I would say that right now in the Joint Economic Committee there's a hearing on fundamental tax reform, asking the question can tax reform boost investment and job creation? And the answer is absolutely, it can. Here, in this country, what we tax, we destroy. Think about that. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Mr. Speaker, when I go to speak to high school students, I say, okay, I've got a $20-an-hour job working in my congressional office. Who wants to come work for me? Everybody raises their hand. I said, I'm going to need to tax you about $19 an hour on that, so you're only going to get to take home 1. Who wants to come work for me? And all the hands go down. The hands go down because they don't want to work for $1 an hour. They want to keep what they earn. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Today, in this country, we tax income. We are the only Nation in the OECD that does not have a consumption tax. We tax income. And when you tax income, which is productivity, you destroy productivity. I have a proposal that is the most widely cosponsored fundamental tax reform proposal in either the House or the Senate, and it's called the Fair Tax. It's H.R. 25 here on the House side. And I have the great pleasure of working with so many of my colleagues to push that bill forward. It abolishes the income tax in favor of a consumption tax. Now, when we're in a tough economy like this, folks say, But Rob, I'm cutting back on my consumption. Would we still be able to bring in the revenue that we need with a consumption tax? Well, I bring charts. What you see here in the blue line is personal consumption, and what you see in the red line is personal income. The red line represents what we tax in the income tax, and the blue line represents what we would tax in the consumption tax. And what you see are two things. Number one, they are roughly the same--roughly the same. Yes, we can tax consumption and bring in the same revenue we get today by taxing income, but when they're different, it's because the volatility of the income is greater than the volatility of consumption. When you tax income, all you get to tax is income. When you tax consumption, you end up taxing income, plus savings people are spending, plus borrowing that they're doing. It's a much more stable tax. Why is that important? Mr. Speaker, what you know in your time here in the House, as I know from my time here in the House, is that if you give this House more money, we're going to spend it. I don't want to spend it. I wish we wouldn't. And I'm going to vote ``no,'' but I'm going to lose. If you tax something that's volatile, in the boom years, the money comes pouring in. Do you think we save it for a rainy day? We don't. We spend it. And then when the down year comes, folks are accustomed to a high spending level. What do we do? We borrow it from our children and our grandchildren and spend it anew. Having a stable income stream that doesn't have the highs and doesn't have the lows will lead to a better Federal budgeting process. And taxing consumption, which is what we take out of the economy, instead of taxing the income, which is what we put into the economy, will grow it; Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, the Joint Tax Committee here did a study and said, How would we evaluate consumption tax? We don't even have a model for it. How would we do it if we did away with the income tax and brought in the consumption tax? They brought in economic groups from the left and the right. Of course they disagreed about absolutely everything, those groups from the left to the right, all the way across the spectrum, except for one thing, Mr. Speaker. Every single economic model and group agreed that if we moved to a consumption tax from today's income tax, America's economy would grow faster. Mr. Speaker, every dollar we can grow, every job we can create, they matter today. And I encourage folks to take a look at H.R. 25, the Fair Tax, as a mechanism for making that happen.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I love the Second Amendment. I got my first gun from Santa Claus when I was 6 years old. The first handgun I ever fired wasn't my dad's or my uncle's or my grandfather's--it was my mother's. I got my first concealed-carry application filled out as a freshman in law school. I lived in a bad neighborhood and needed it for self protection. I've had it for the last 20 years. I love the Second Amendment. But if the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from State to State to State, I don't need another Federal law that says, yeah, I really mean it. It's already protected. If the Second Amendment doesn't protect my right to carry a concealed weapon from State to State to State, then the Ninth and 10th Amendments leave that responsibility to individuals and the States to regulate on their own. I came to Congress to protect freedom. I don't believe the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to allow me to shoot targets. I don't believe the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to allow me to hunt for deer and turkey. I think the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights so that I could defend my freedom against an overbearing Federal Government. I don't want the Federal Government in any issue of the law where the Constitution does not require it. And it does not require it here. Don't tell me it's an Interstate Commerce Clause issue; we dismiss that on my side of the aisle regularly. Don't tell me it's necessary and proper; we dismiss that on our side of the aisle regularly. And don't tell me it's full faith and credit because we dismiss that on our side of the aisle regularly. The temptation to legislate is great. The temptation is great. I absolutely believe in the intent of this legislation. I want the right to carry from coast to coast. Georgia has already orchestrated reciprocity agreements with 25 States. We've got 24 more to go. The Second Amendment exists so that we can keep and bear arms to defend ourselves against government, no matter how well-intended. Rather than arms, I ask my colleagues to use their voting cards today to defend us against the overreach of the Federal Government, no matter how well- intended.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment I have introduced today, because I have such appreciation for the goal of H.R. 822, says: Understanding what we are trying to get is reciprocity across the Nation for all of those States and for all of those citizens that have already labored in the vineyards to achieve reciprocity, let's leave those State agreements in place. If we must take more Federal responsibility, let's not take it from those areas where the States are working, where the process is working. If you live in my next-door neighbor State, in Alabama, you already recognize 22 other States' permits; in Georgia, we recognize 23; in Florida, to our south, 33. The system is working today. Legislatures are working out these agreements today. If we must expand the size and scope of the Federal reach in the gun law legislation, let's not trample on those agreements that already exist to achieve this goal that so many share. I absolutely support the goal of H.R. 822, which is to ensure that all Americans have concealed-carry reciprocity across the Nation. That is already happening today, Mr. Chairman, through State legislatures, through State attorneys general, through State Governors negotiating these agreements. My amendment would leave those agreements in place and preserve the rights of States to continue to legislate and regulate in this area. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I thank the chairman of the committee for his work on these issues. I agree with so much of what he had to say, that it is absolutely true that the merit of this legislation is that it eliminates the patchwork of reciprocity agreements that go on across this country. And the price we pay for eliminating that patchwork is trampling upon the work of the States. Now, I'm a freshman in this House, Mr. Chairman, and I think small government conservatives in previous Congresses have lost their way, particularly during the Bush administration. They went along with a huge expansion of government regulation, with the very best of intentions. They went along with the huge expansion of the size of government, with the very best of intentions. They increased the regulatory burden of the Federal Government, with the very best of intentions. And this bill today is brought with the very best of intentions. But when previous Congresses have gone along with the very best of intentions, personal freedom and liberty have been eroded, even with the very best of intentions. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that happens if the Woodall amendment passes today is that agreements that already exist for reciprocity, and any future agreements made for reciprocity, will be held supreme over a unified Federal standard. I ask my colleagues, my Republican colleagues and my Democratic colleagues, isn't it worth it? Isn't sacrificing a uniform framework worth it to protect the rights of State legislatures and the work of citizens across this country that they have put in to protect, preserve, and promote Second Amendment rights across this Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I appreciate the time. I'm coming to the floor today with joy in my heart, and candidly I would like to come to the floor every day Mr. Speaker, but I don't always get to. But today, I'm here because we're voting on a balanced budget amendment this week. The first time in 15 years. Now, I'm a freshman in this House, Mr. Speaker. I've been watching the process for a long time, but I've only had a voting card for 10 months. And I came to this Congress to do the big things, not to argue about the petty things. And I tell folks, Mr. Speaker, that very rarely are we arguing about the petty things, that there's a constituent focus to absolutely everything that we do. But the big things. The big things that change the direction of this country that ensure that this experiment in democracy, that our Republic, survives for another generation. Fifteen trillion dollars in debt, Mr. Speaker. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, you don't have the gray hair that I do, but back in the days of Ronald Reagan we were running $200 billion and $300 billion annual deficits. And folks thought the world might be coming to the end. Now, it put the Soviet Union out of business, but it was big money. Who'd of thought we would come to a day where we're actually running $1.4 trillion, $1.5 trillion, $1.6 trillion deficits every year? Mr. Speaker, as you know, in the people's House where the people's will gets done, we have choices here. In my district, for example, folks want to tax less and spend less. I hear it every day. Rob, tax less and spend less. I'm sure I've got some colleagues on the other side of the aisle whose constituencies want to tax more and spend more. That is a legitimate debate for us to have in this House. We should have it. But we ought to be able to agree that spending money we don't have harms the future of this Republic. That spending money we don't have mortgages the future of everyone under the age of 20 and threatens the security of everyone over the age of 60. A balanced budget amendment is one of those things that we can agree on, one of those issues that is not Republican, it's not Democrat, it's not conservative, it's not liberal--it is American. Thomas Jefferson said if he could have added but one amendment to the Constitution, it would have been one to abolish the power of the government to borrow, because with that one amendment alone, he would be certain of the security of these United States. Mr. Speaker, that chance is here with us this week for the first time in 15 years. Now, I confess when I came to Congress, Mr. Speaker, I didn't expect to have to vote for a balanced budget. I just thought we were going to be able to do the right thing and balance the budget on our own. I thought that's the job of the Congress. Do what you're supposed to do. Do what's right. Why do you need an amendment to the Constitution to do what's right? Mr. Speaker, it turned out to be a bigger job than I anticipated. The disagreements turned out to be more fundamental than I anticipated, and the desire of constituents back home turned out to be more complicated than I anticipated. This is our opportunity, though. I have a copy of the Constitution that we have here. It's right behind my job creators card. And I keep it behind the job creators card because balancing the budget in this country has everything to do with preserving economic opportunity in this country and everything to do with growing our economy in the generation to come. My copy of the Constitution has a little space right there after amendment number 27. A space right here, Mr. Speaker, where we can put amendment number 28 today and ensure that our Republic survives for another generation. You see what's going on in Europe. There but for the grace of God go we. This is our opportunity. It is not a divisive issue. It is not an issue that divides north or south, east or west, Republicans or Democrats. It is an issue that unites America. It was a huge bipartisan vote in 1995, and it will be a huge bipartisan vote today. I hope your telephone lines, Mr. Speaker, are ringing as are mine. If not, why not, Mr. Speaker? Why hasn't everyone in your district called to say, Please support the balanced budget amendment? Why, Mr. Speaker, hasn't everyone in my district called to say, Please support the balanced budget amendment? Raise taxes, lower taxes; cut spending, raise spending--that's an American decision that we get to decide, but borrowing and putting off those tough decisions to another day is immoral. We have a chance this week to change that.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend on the Rules Committee for yielding. I rise in strong support of this rule today. Now, I hear a lot of conversation about States' rights here on the House floor--federalism, you know, that debate that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had more than two centuries ago. It's an important debate to have, and I hope we have that debate on every single thing that we do in this body. I hope we ask ourselves that question every single day: Is this a responsibility and a role the Federal Government ought to be playing, or should this be something that's left to the States? Sadly, I've heard more of that enthusiasm today than I usually hear down here, but I welcome it--not as a step in the wrong direction, but a step towards that new beginning. I believe that we can absolutely come together around those kinds of uniting issues: Does the Federal Government need to be involved in this or does it not? The reason I'm in strong support of this rule, however, is that it made 10 amendments in order. You know, this bill, this concealed-carry reciprocity bill--and in fairness, full disclosure, I'm literally a card-carrying member of the concealed-carry bandwagon. I've got my Georgia carry permit here in my pocket, I have since I was 22 and living in a neighborhood that I thought I needed some self-protection living in. This is a discussion that this body has been trying to have for about 15 years. As long as I can remember watching Congress, this bill has been knocking around in Congress and no one has ever brought it to the floor of the House despite a broad bipartisan majority of the body cosponsoring it. I've always wondered why, because for Pete's sakes, if it's something that a majority of the body is going to cosponsor, then it ought to be something that the majority of the body is going to support, and we ought to bring it to the House floor and let the House work its will. I'm still struggling with the underlying legislation, but I appreciate this leadership and this Rules Committee for bringing a bill to the floor when more than a majority of the House has cosponsored it. And I appreciate this leadership and this Rules Committee for giving us 10 amendments from which to choose to improve the bill. There are opt- in provisions if you're worried about federalism. There are honor State compact amendments if you're worried about federalism. There are study amendments with the GAO to sort out whether or not there are unintended consequences with regard to nonresident permits. These choices are out there for us. Not only did this Rules Committee bring forward a bill that other Congresses have not had the courage to bring forward, but it brought it forward in a way that this body can work its will. Eight Democratic amendments, as I recall, two Republican amendments. That's the kind of House I came to Congress as a freshman to work in. I appreciate the work the Rules Committee did to make this possible, and I appreciate, Madam Speaker, the work of the leadership in guiding us down this path.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time this morning. I came down to talk about jobs too, and I brought with me a card that folks may have seen--I know you've seen it, Mr. Speaker--that goes through the House-passed jobs agenda. I try to keep it here in my pocket so I'll be accurate when we talk about all of the good work that is happening in the people's House to promote jobs and promote the economy. Because the truth is, Mr. Speaker, as you know, we only have two pockets we can dig into. We can dig into the pocket where we talk about government regulations that we are repealing to help job creators, we can dig into the pocket where we talk about government mandates that we're repealing to take the foot of government off the throat of small businesses, or we can dig into the other pocket. And the other pocket is where America's checkbook is. Because it's not my checkbook, as your Congressman. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when I dig into the pocket for the checkbook, I'm digging into your pocket. Every penny that we spend comes out of your pocket. So we have two choices as we talk about jobs and the economy. Are we going to dig into the pocket of the American taxpayers' checkbook? Or are we going to get the regulatory burden off of America's small businesses? For me, the choice is easy. But the choice hasn't always been easy in this House. Time and time again, this House goes to the American people's checkbook to find solutions for America's problems. And I will tell you that there's no problem in America that taking money out of somebody else's pocket is going to fix. The challenges in America are going to come when we get government out of the way. I represent, Mr. Speaker, as you know, a wonderful district in Georgia. I go back home and I talk about what's going on in the United States House. I ask folks what they want to happen on the United States House of Representatives floor, and they say, Rob, stop helping. Stop. Just get out of the way. Stop helping. You don't have the answers, just get out of the way. If folks go, as you have gone, Mr. Speaker, to jobs.gop.gov, they see this House's effort to get government out of the way. And we've been successful. We were successful in passing the repeal of the President's health care bill's 1099 provision that burdens small businesses, and the President signed that bill. We've been successful in passing three free trade agreements, and the President has signed. As we know, we have manufacturing surpluses with every nation with which we have a free trade agreement. But the work still has to be done, Mr. Speaker. There are jobs bills languishing in the Senate. We call them the ``forgotten 15''--15 bills that the Senate could pass tomorrow to get government out of the way and get Americans back to work. Two pockets we have, Mr. Speaker, the American taxpayers' pocket and the pocket that contains the job-killing regulations that we can repeal today. Let's choose correctly, Mr. Speaker--let's get jobs.gop.gov, let's get this agenda done.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, you probably get the same questions I get when I go back home. Those questions are from folks who came, they sat here in the gallery and they looked down on the House floor, and they thought: Golly, where is everybody? Where's everybody? I thought it was going to be full of 435 Members of Congress. But, of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in today's modern technology world, everybody's back in their office watching things on television. But I confess that sometimes during this morning-hour, I turn the volume down a little bit. I turn it down a little bit because sometimes we get into those divisive issues down here on the House floor. It gets my blood pressure up so much I think my head is going to explode first thing in the morning. I sometimes turn the volume down. But today I wanted to come down here and find those things that bring us together as opposed to divide us, because I really do believe that as we face the kind of economic challenges that we're facing in America today, there is more that unites this body than divides it. There's more that we can do together than we must fight about in order to move the American Dream forward. I have in my pocket a card. It's titled, ``The House Republican Jobs Plan,'' but I'd tell you it's an American jobs plan. I look down the items that we have brought forward in this Republican House, America's House, the things that they've been able to pass in the United States Senate, those things that have gone to the President's desk, and we are making progress, Mr. Speaker, on those things that unite us. Of course, we started the year off repealing the 1099 provision from the President's health care bill, that onerous provision that required new paperwork mandates on all of our small businesses, completely unworkable. We came together, the House and Senate, and the President repealed that. Last week, we came and we passed three new free trade agreements-- three new free trade agreements--for this Nation. Mr. Speaker, as you know, with every nation that America has a free trade agreement, we have a manufacturing surplus. Hear that, Mr. Speaker. With every nation with which we have a free trade agreement, we have a manufacturing trade surplus. We ship more American-made goods to those countries than we import. We have a trade deficit as a Nation, but a manufactured goods surplus with the nations with which we signed free trade agreements. Free trade agreements, good for America, good for jobs, good for trade, and we were able to move those across the President's desk with his signature last week--2 weeks ago now. And this week, we're going to bring two more bills to the floor, things that bring us together. You heard my colleague from Illinois talk about, earlier this morning, the 3 percent withholding, a bill that we passed to say we think there are lots of tax cheats going on out there among folks who contract with the government, so we're going to just withhold those taxes up front and make you get them back later on. Well, it turns out 3 percent withholding, our small businesses owners didn't even have a 3 percent margin. If we had held all that money, they couldn't even pay the bills. They'd actually have to operate at a loss for the year and ask the government in April for their refund. The President's onboard with that repeal. I believe the House is going to be onboard with that repeal. The Senate is going to be onboard with that repeal. We're going to move that across the floor this week as well. Things that are bringing us together, Mr. Speaker, are common ground that we can cover to make it easier to create jobs in this country. Because I agree with my colleague, Mr. Rangel, the American Dream is that you can come here and do better tomorrow than you did today, that you can provide your kids with more opportunity than what you had. That is the American Dream. I don't worry that folks want to come to America. I worry about the one day that that dream has disappeared and folks don't want to come to America anymore. They'd rather take their big brain and their hard work ethic to China or to India or Brazil or Argentina. We must preserve America as the magnet of success, the magnet that attracts those that want to improve their lives and believe those opportunities exist here. Mr. Speaker, there's a commonality in all of those bills that we've passed and sent to the President's desk this year, and it's that these were things the government did to try to encourage compliance, to try to regulate, to try to require that small businesses operate differently, and what we found out is they didn't work. The 1099 provision, free trade, those tariffs and duties that prevented that free trade, this 3 percent holding provision, what is the common ground, Mr. Speaker? Congress is doing too much in regulating. America is doing too much in regulating this country. I ran on that premise, Mr. Speaker. The challenge is we are not doing too little. The problem is that we are doing too much and burdening those small businesses. The former soviet bloc countries, Mr. Speaker, have learned from that example. They have flat tax rates, no exemptions, no exceptions, and their tax collections went up. Mr. Speaker, folks can't pay taxes if they don't have a job. You can't pay income taxes if you don't have a job. And you can't have a job if you don't have opportunity in your society. The Fair Tax, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 25, goes right to the heart of these jobs issues. Repealing those burdensome taxes, repealing those regulations, and making sure everybody gets a fair shake, because that is what America is all about.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, as you know, when folks turn on C-SPAN, it's not hard to find those things that divide us here on the House floor. We can talk to anybody that we see walking around the Capitol today, and they could talk about those issues that divide us as a Nation. But I'm a firm believer that there is actually more that unites us as a Nation than divides us. And I know one of the things that unites this House in this time in our Nation's history, more than in others, is that desire to create jobs for American families. We all have those families in our districts that are struggling with foreclosure right now, Madam Speaker. We all have those families in our districts that are struggling with layoffs. And we have those families in our districts that are the small business owners that actually drive this economy. That's another area of agreement we have, Madam Speaker. Folks know it's not the big businesses in America that hire; it's the little businesses in America. It's those entrepreneurs out there. It's those folks who think that they have an idea. It's that husband and wife team who goes out and says, I can do it better, and they hang out their own shingle. But anybody who's talked to those small business men and women these days, Madam Speaker, knows that folks have a tough time getting access to credit. It seems now in America the only people who can borrow money are folks who don't need any money at all. And that's a challenge. That's a challenge because what makes this economy grow are those folks who say: I can use that money better. I can do something more efficiently. I can add productivity if only you'll take a chance on me. But the regulators, Madam Speaker, that's what I hear from my bankers: My regulators won't let me lend anymore. That's what I hear from my bankers: The regulators came in, Rob, and told me I can't give any more money out to small businesses. So where are we? Where are we? What's going to hire our young people, Madam Speaker? What's going to fuel the economy? What's going to pay the Social Security taxes that need to be paid if we can't create those jobs? Well, I want to talk about something else that unites us as a House, and that's H.R. 1418. It's the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act, Madam Speaker, and it's sponsored by 33 Republicans and 51 Democrats. You don't hear that very often when you watch C-SPAN, Madam Speaker. I know that to be true. But about half Republicans and about half Democrats come together on what is called the Small Business Lending Enhancement Act that says to our credit unions, those small institutions in each of our communities, be a part of job creation. I ran for Congress, Madam Speaker, on the platform that it's not that the government does too little; it's that the government does too much. There's nothing wrong with the foundation of America. It's the way we've hamstrung America with additional rules and regulations. Our credit unions are in that spot. For folks who don't know, credit unions today are only allowed to lend about 12\1/4\ percent of their assets to small businesses, to businesses at all, in fact, and they want to do more. Folks can't find the money at banks. They come to their credit unions. They say, Can you help? And Congress has said, No. Congress has said, No. It's not what we need to do. It's what we need to undo. H.R. 1418 undoes that 12\1/4\ percent cap, Madam Speaker, and raises it to 27\1/ 2\. Hear that. Every credit union in America would be able to participate in funding small businesses, in providing the capital that small businesses need to succeed. You can't succeed without capital. Capital's not available in America today. We need to find ways to do that. Something else you don't hear a lot, Madam Speaker, is where the House and the Senate are coming together on things. These days, more than most, it seems hard to find those things that the House and Senate agree on. But to be clear, this bill has been introduced in the Senate, too. It's S. 509 on the Senate side, and it has 20 cosponsors in the Senate, so that's about one-fifth of the Senate is already on board. Eighty-four Members of the House, that's about 20 percent of the House also on board. This is something we can do, Madam Speaker. It's something we can do today. It doesn't cost the taxpayer a nickel--doesn't cost the taxpayer a nickel--and frees up capital for our small business men and women. I want folks, Madam Speaker, to look out over the horizon, as you and I do, and say: What's going to change joblessness in this country? What's going to change it? We have the lowest level of entrepreneurship in this country that we have seen in 30 years--30 years--and it's entrepreneurs that drive this train. It's not the big guys; it's the little guys. This bill, Madam Speaker, frees up our money that we have put into our credit unions by removing restrictions that we, as a Congress, have placed on our credit unions to allow them to be a part of job growth. We don't need another stimulus bill. We don't need to spend more taxpayer money. And by ``taxpayer money,'' I mean, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said earlier, money we're borrowing from China to spend on stimulus programs. We can do it simply by undoing those rules and regulations that we've passed already in this House, Madam Speaker. H.R. 1418, it doesn't do it overnight; it does it gradually. It requires that the regulators be involved. It says only if you have experience in member lending, only if you're well capitalized, and only if you have a history of doing it well. Let's pass H.R. 1418, Madam Speaker, and let's move it to the Senate.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will challenge the American people to watch this debate that happens over the next hour, because I am down here as a freshman to tell you this is exactly what is supposed to be happening in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is what is supposed to be happening in the people's House. I hold in my hand a committee report, the committee report from H.R. 2250. It was introduced by a freshman, a freshman from the southwestern corner of Virginia who introduced it, Mr. Speaker, because he's worried about jobs in his district. You are not going to find--and I challenge you to find, a single Member who'd come to the floor to say my freshman colleague introduced this bill because he has any motivation other than the best interests of the men and women and families that live in his district. Now, understand that: He introduced this bill that we are going to discuss, if this rule passes, because he is concerned about the men, women, children, the families in his district. That's why this legislation was introduced. He introduced this legislation over the summer, June 21. On September 8 the subcommittee that deals with this legislation had a hearing. On September 8 they had a hearing, and on September 13, a week later, reported out this bill through the regular subcommittee process. We go on, Mr. Speaker, September 20, the full committee had hearings, markups on this bill, met in open markup session, and on September 21, reported out this bill, printed this committee report online for all of America to read. And today, if the rule proposed by my friend from Florida passes, we are going to allow any Member of this House, any Member, Republican and Democrat alike, to offer any changes that they propose, any changes. All they have to do, we gave notice of that a week ago today, all they have to do is preprint their amendment in the Congressional Record, submit it by the close of business tonight so that all Members will have a chance to read it and consider it thoughtfully. Mr. Speaker, that is how this House is supposed to run: regular order, regular process, hearings, markups, and allowing any Member to have their say. Now, nevertheless, this rule is being challenged and urged for its defeat because folks don't like the underlying idea. That's a real frustration for me, Mr. Speaker, because I grew up in a Nation where we disagree about things from time to time and that's okay. And what we do is we disagree about them, and then we bring them to the House floor for a vote so that America gets to decide. I am the voice for 921,000 people in Georgia, and I can only speak for them when I have a vote on the House floor. This rule provides that any amendment offered by any Member of this body gets to have the voice of my 921,000 constituents heard. This is the way it's supposed to be run. I came, Mr. Speaker, from a press conference earlier with about half the freshman class urging the Senate to take up legislation, job- creating legislation that is just sitting there in the Senate and the Senate won't take it up. Why? Because perhaps folks don't like the ideas in their entirety. Mr. Speaker, I recommend they amend them, that they adopt our process of amending bills in a way that the people's voice gets to be heard. We don't have to agree on everything, but we have to talk about it. We have to move that legislation forward, and we have to get the American people's work done. It's not optional, Mr. Speaker. If you didn't want to get the American people's work done you shouldn't have signed up for the job. And come next November you have a chance to go back home. But if you want to get the people's work done, this is the right process to do it. Mr. Speaker, all jobs are not created equal. I challenge anyone to come to the floor of the House and tell me that jobs are not going to be destroyed, manufacturing jobs, good-paying manufacturing jobs, destroyed by the implementation of this rule. Now we are going to create some other jobs. All the moving companies who move folks out of their house in my district when their homes get foreclosed on because they lost their jobs, those jobs are going to be created. We are going to create some jobs with these rules, but not the kinds of jobs that I know we want, we collectively want. This bill has a lot of common ground in it, Mr. Speaker, and we have an opportunity in this process to find that common ground. You know, folks tell this as the tale of Republicans out to get the EPA. Nobody loves clean air more than I do. Nobody loves clean water more than I do, and I would argue no one participates in the outdoors more than I do. But the EPA asked, Mr. Speaker, that they have more time to finalize this. They said, We don't have time to get it right. Can we have more time? And you know what? The Court got involved and said, no, you cannot; no more time for you. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the Congress said no. Today the Congress has an opportunity to say yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise in full support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. WOODALL. As a part of this freshman class, we're making progress. I look forward to working with you to make even more progress. And I hope, since we can agree this one is done right, that we can come together, vote in favor of this, and then look forward to our next challenge. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Of course, the Rules Committee sent out a Dear Colleague a week ago alerting them that they had until tonight. And I say to my friend, I think you're absolutely right about the need for even more openness in this House. Of course, we only had one open rule in the last Congress.

Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?