Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say I absolutely agree with the gentlelady. This is no place for politics. And that's why, as Mr. Kucinich has led this effort time after time after time, he's had tremendous support from the Republican side of the aisle. This is not about Republicans and Democrats. This is about the Constitution of the United States. This is about the 911,000 people I represent back home. This is about the people's voice being behind the President. As the chairman of the Rules Committee said, this should not be a time for division. This should be a time for unification. I absolutely agree with my colleagues who are concerned about the debate happening today, on June 24. The time for the debate was March 18. The time for the debate was before this got started to begin with. But we have been put in this box, Mr. Speaker, and we have a constitutional responsibility to find our way out of it. We have on the floor today under this rule two opportunities, two opportunities to make our constituents' voices heard, and I encourage a strong ``yes'' vote for this rule so that we can bring those opportunities to the floor. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who has great reverence for the United States Constitution, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 328 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2278 and H.J. Res. 68. The rule provides a total of 3 hours of debate in this Chamber on this vitally important issue of U.S. military operations in Libya. The rule also provides the minority with two separate motions to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, it was in this week in 1788, June 21, 1788, that the United States ratified its Constitution, that Constitution that still serves us so well today. In that Constitution, our Framers made clear that the power of the purse belongs here and here alone, here in the people's House, here on Capitol Hill; and that Constitution made clear that the power to declare war lies here and here alone. On June 3 of this year by a vote of 268-145 the House of Representatives passed a resolution asking the President to make clear what his intentions are in Libya, asking the President to come and consult with Congress, to get Congress' permission, to seek our authority to prosecute those hostilities in Libya. We have received some information from the White House since then. We have gotten a letter from the White House since then. We even have classified documents since then. But what we have not had since then, Mr. Speaker, is an opportunity for the American people to make their voice heard on this important issue, because, after all, this isn't an issue for Congress, because as a Congressman, it is not about my voice. It is about the voice of the 911,000 people back home that I represent that I bring here to Congress, and those people's voices have yet to be heard on this Libya issue. Operation Odyssey Dawn is in full operation now, since the month of March, and the people's voice has still not been heard. But today, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee, as one of the longest-standing committees in this U.S. House of Representatives, first constituted in 1789, the Rules Committee is making that opportunity available with these two resolutions. Mr. Speaker, my hope is that the people's voice will be heard today; that in this hour upon hour of debate that we have today, these two very different choices for where this country goes, that the American people will for the first time have their voice heard on the question of Libya. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when we come back in July, we're going to take up the FY 2012 defense bill. In fact, we'll take it up tonight and start considering amendments when we return. We'll again have an opportunity to have our voice heard. Because, Mr. Speaker, there is an entire gradation of options that we have here. Are we going to declare war on Libya? Are we going to allow the President to continue doing what he's doing in Libya? Are we going to shut down the funding for troops on the ground on Libya? Are we going to shut down funding for Libya altogether? These are the questions that the Rules Committee has made available today and 2 weeks from now so that this House will be able to have its voice heard. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 28, 2011; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, July 1, 2011.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 486, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today after the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. I want to talk about taxes today, but I want to associate myself with the previous speaker's comments about how we make different decisions when we have skin in the game because that is absolutely something that we are losing in this country. We are losing what used to be that common value that we rise and we fall together. I see my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, sitting in the Chamber today. And he tells the committee on a regular basis that we need to pay for those things that we do. We're involved in wars, and we need to pay. We need to have a populace that believes in what we're doing in such a way that they are willing to sacrifice not just their time but their treasure to support those measures. When we don't have folks who have skin in the game, we make different decisions. When a minority of the folks get the benefit or a minority of the folks are bearing the burden, we make different decisions. Now the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is absolutely right; we have the lowest tax rates among the highest earning individuals that we've had in this country since 1950. Now what the gentleman did not mention is that we also have the lowest tax rates that we've had in this country for the lowest income individuals that we've ever had. We have fewer Americans paying income tax today than at any time since the 1950s, since the expansion of the income tax that happened during World War II, and I hear that. We have the wealthiest paying the least that they have ever paid as a percent, as a marginal rate. They're actually paying more than they've ever paid as a percentage of all the Federal receipts in this country. We have the lowest income individuals paying the least they've ever paid as a percentage of the income that comes into this country. And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that much like we make bad decisions about foreign policy when we don't all have skin in the game, we make bad decisions about economic policy when we don't have skin in the game. Now when we talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, those are complicated solutions. It is not obvious to me how we move from today to peace. I don't know how we get that done. We have externalities at play there that we don't have control over, but not so with our Tax Code. Folks, when you look at the American economy, there is nothing that is going on with the American economy that we did not do to ourselves. Think about that. Mr. Speaker, do you have any constituents back home who have lost their jobs to corporations that have moved overseas? I do. And yet we continue to have the highest corporate tax rate in the world in America. Now who decides that? We do. We decide that's the kind of country we want to live in, and we can change it. Folks, there is nothing wrong with America that we collectively can't fix. Now I've introduced a bill that I believe is going to make a dramatic impact in that direction. It's called the Fair Tax. It's H.R. 25 in the House, it's S. 13 in the Senate. And Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is the most broadly cosponsored piece of tax reform legislation in either body. In fact, it is the most widely cosponsored piece of legislation on tax reform in both bodies. And what the Fair Tax does is this--it's no magic solution, Mr. Speaker; it doesn't have some sort of clever math that's going to make everything okay. It simply goes into the American Tax Code and erases it. It says, if you could start with a blank sheet of paper, what would you do? And Mr. Speaker, we can. We can start with a blank sheet of paper. We can choose our own destiny. We can make sure that we're making the best decisions for jobs and the economy in this country. The Fair Tax does this. It will eliminate the income tax code, that income tax code that punishes people for what they earn, and it changes that Tax Code with a Tax Code that collects taxes based on what people spend. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, it pains me every time I open up The Wall Street Journal and it bemoans the fact that American consumerism is in decline. Why can't we celebrate American savings? Why do we have to celebrate American consumption? The reason is because we have been building an economy based on an income tax code that is based on debt and refinancing and debt and refinancing, but we can change that today, Mr. Speaker. We have 1 billion new consumers coming online in China, 1 billion new consumers coming online in India, and they want what we produce. The Fair Tax erases the income tax code that forces American productivity overseas, forces American jobs overseas, and it returns us to our roots as a country, our roots as a country that reward productivity, that encourage folks to stay. There is only one taxpayer in this country. I know we have a corporate income tax. I know we have taxes on goods and services and excise taxes, and on and on and on. But there is only one taxpayer in the American economy, and that is the American consumer, because every single tax we have rolls downhill. Do you want to charge that corporation tax? Do you want to charge Wal-Mart an excise tax? What do you think is going to happen at Wal- Mart? Prices are going to go up. Do you want to charge Coke a sugar tax? What do you think is going to happen to the price of your Coke? The price of Coke is going to go up. There is one taxpayer in this country, the American consumer. That is a radical idea, I won't kid you. And by radical I mean it is the same one Thomas Jefferson had. By radical I mean it is the same one Alexander Hamilton had. By radical I mean we haven't done it in the last 100 years. But we can do it today, Mr. Speaker, with H.R. 25 and S. 13.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I rise today as a proud member of the Rules Committee. I appreciate my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding to me. It's not lightly that I come down to the floor today, because I've only been on the job here 5 months. Mr. Speaker, you know that I'm one of the new guys here in Congress, and I came down to the House floor because I thought this is where deliberation went on. I thought this is where folks had candid conversations about how to improve a bill. I see my colleague Mr. Polis there at the table. We've made a lot of amendments available, not just on the patent bill, but on the EPA bill as well. So when I come to the floor and hear folks talking about CutGo, I wonder what happened to the serious conversations that we were going to have here on the floor. I wonder where the seriousness about improving the bills that are coming to the floor went because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, this CutGo issue is one that was created solely because the way the bill was reported out of committee and the way the manager's amendment impacted it created a technical CutGo violation. A technical CutGo violation. Ask the freshman Member of Congress, and I'll tell you that there is a technical CutGo violation in the manager's amendment. Does it spend $1? Does it spend $1 that the Federal Government wasn't going to spend anyway? No. Does it cost the American taxpayer $1? The answer is ``no.''

Mr. WOODALL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member.

Mr. WOODALL. I reclaim my time. That's what troubles me as a freshman because I know, Mr. Speaker, that the distinguished Member knows that had the committee reported this bill out the way the manager's amendment crafts this bill there would be no CutGo violation whatsoever. Hear that. Had the committee reported this bill out the way we're bringing this bill to the floor, there would have been no CutGo violation whatsoever. Yet we are raising this issue on the floor of the House as if there is some big backroom deal going on. That's frustrating to me as a freshman Member, Mr. Speaker, because there is no backroom deal. This is the most open House of Representatives that I've seen in my lifetime. This is the most open Rules Committee that I've seen in my lifetime. This is the most open process in the people's House that I have seen in my lifetime. Yet, for reasons that I cannot suppose, folks make this case as if there are nefarious things going on in the background. I say to my colleagues and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the American people have a distrust of Washington, D.C., and I will tell you that that distrust is well earned. That distrust is well earned, and that's why there are 96 new people here this time around. Folks, let's not suggest that there is something going on when there's not. Let's be honest when there are problems, and let's be honest when we're doing it right; and Mr. Speaker, we're doing it right today.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that this is a serious topic that we are talking about here today, the Homeland Security appropriations bill. When you pass a responsible budget, as we did here in the House, you've got to make tough choices. I learned here as a freshman that we do these 10-year budget plans, but only year one matters because then the next Congress comes back and does year two and year three and year four. So the only serious decisions that we are making in this budget is what happens in year one, and that's the Homeland Security appropriations bill that is before us here today. How are we going to fund Homeland Security for year one? And we are down here talking about all of these ancillary issues; and I tell you, this one's important. This one's important. This one's happening. This isn't smoke and mirrors 10 years down the road. This is happening today. The Appropriations Committee has worked long and hard to craft the best delicate balance that they could. Mr. Speaker, 42 cents out of every dollar we're borrowing. Folks talk about we don't have any money. That's not a state of mind; that's a fact. It's a fact. And we cannot afford to shortchange the work that we're doing on the Homeland Security appropriations bill on these--I can't think of a kind word to say. I'm not going to say anything at all, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, I'm excited to be down here today. You told us, Mr. Speaker, when this Congress began that we were going to witness one of the most open Congresses in this country's history, and you have delivered on that each and every day. Now, I'm one of the new guys in Congress. I've only been here about 125 days, but what I saw--we're talking about budgets here today. What I saw in the budget process was a leadership team and the chair of the Rules Committee who said, Bring me a budget, any budget. I don't care who you are, whether you're the most senior Member of this body or the most junior Member of this body, bring me a budget, and we will consider it on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. Come all. Come all. Give us your ideas, and we will consider them. Well, we had that process. I voted for two budgets on that budget voting day. I voted for the Republican Study Committee budget, which I thought was a great budget, and I voted for the Budget Committee's budget. I sit on the Budget Committee with Paul Ryan, and the Budget Committee put in a tremendous amount of work, and that was the budget that ended up carrying the day. And so that's the budget we're operating under right here today. The Homeland Security appropriations bill, the first bill out of the chute. And what did you do, Mr. Speaker? You said, Come one, come all. If you have an idea about how to improve this appropriations bill, bring it to the floor of the House and we'll consider it. Bring it to the floor of the House and we'll consider it. Now, you might think, if you don't know as much about this House, if you're a newcomer like me, you might think it goes on that way all the time. But it doesn't because it's hard. It's hard. I can only imagine, Mr. Speaker, what you get from folks back home, because they probably say to you, close down the process. Push your conservative agenda. Do it your way and make people fall in line. And you said no. You said the House works best when the House works its will. You said any Member of the House that can find 218 Members to agree with him can work their will on the floor. And that's the process that we're opening up. Not a Republican process, not a Democratic process, but an American process where the power of the ideas are what rules the day. Now, that's taken a huge commitment from the Speaker and a huge commitment from the Rules Committee chairman to make this process happen and a huge commitment from the Appropriations chairman to make this happen. But I'll tell you, for anybody out there who is thinking in partisan terms, it takes a commitment from both sides of the aisle. Open rules break down when we can't make those open rules work together. I see my friend, Mr. Polis, from the Rules Committee, who is a strong advocate of the open rules process, and here we are for the first time since July of 2007. And we're going to find out if we can make this work together--a new crowd on your side of the aisle; a new crowd on my side of the aisle. We're going to find out if we can make it work together. Golly, I hope we can. I hope we can, because it's the right thing to do, because I only have a voice in this body when I can bring my amendments to the floor. I only have a voice in this body when I can represent the 921,000 people back home. Mr. Speaker, you have given that to us over and over again, and I thank you.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, like my colleague from Georgia, I too was sitting back in my office. I saw the debate break out on the floor of the House on the Medicare proposal, the proposal to rescue Medicare from certain bankruptcy. And I wondered, because I sit on the Rules Committee, and the Rules Committee has one of the great pleasures of deciding what comes to the floor, how it comes to the floor and what goes on, and I knew that this wasn't Medicare reform day. This was the amendment by my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) to protect life. It was an amendment to a bill brought to the floor by my colleague, Mr. Guthrie, which restores congressional oversight and regular order through the appropriations process, those things that I ran for Congress to do. And I rise in strong support both of the Foxx amendment and of Mr. Guthrie's underlying bill. But when I heard this talk about Medicare and all the games and what has happened in the past, I have to say, I have only been here--this is, what, month number 5 for me. I'm still brand new, and I'm still optimistic enough to believe that it doesn't have to all be about sound bites, that it really can be about solutions. And I want to say to my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, when you say that you came up with a proposal in the President's health care bill last year to deal with Medicare, I believe you. I take you at your word. I read through that, too. I saw that Medicare Advantage was removed as an option for seniors. That distressed me. I saw that new benefits, as Ms. Castor just referenced, had been added, Madam Chair, added to a program that's already going bankrupt. I saw that that is one direction that you can take the Medicare program. Now I'm a proud member of the House Budget Committee, the House Budget Committee that worked hard and long to produce the Medicare reform proposal that we're talking about, oddly enough, here today. And it's a program that saves Medicare for everybody 55 years of age and under and provides them with choice. I just want to tell a personal story. I don't consume a lot of health care. I've been very blessed in that regard. But I had to go in for a chest CT the other day. I have a medical savings account, so I'm responsible for the first couple of thousand dollars of my health care bill. So the first health care I consumed was my chest CT. I got on the Internet and started shopping around. It turns out that the difference between the cheapest chest CT and the most expensive chest CT in my part of Georgia is four times--four times. I got in the car. I drove across town and spent my $4 a gallon for gas to go get the cheap one. It turns out the really expensive one was right next door. I could have walked right next door. Folks, when we talk about how we, we the United States Congress, we the U.S. House of Representatives voted to save Medicare in the 2012 budget proposal, we talked about saving it by providing choice. Again, my colleagues are exactly right. We did that in 1997. That was the debate, can we save Medicare in 1997 by providing more choice? Well, we succeeded with adding Medicare Advantage, but we didn't get much further than that. This is that next step. This is that next step because we know that choice matters. We know that choice matters. The gentleman who held my seat and has been retired used to tell the story of his mother in upstate Minnesota, and every Tuesday she would go to the doctor with a group of friends just to make sure everything was okay, just to get checked out. She was on Medicare. One day, there was a terrible snowstorm in Minnesota. The winds were blowing and the snow was piling up. They all got together on Tuesday, and Edna wasn't there, and they began to get worried. They called around and they asked around. It turned out Edna just wasn't feeling well. She couldn't be there that day. You make different choices when you're not responsible for the bills. And we do that over and over and over again. This isn't just a Medicare issue. This is a philosophical difference between these two sides of the aisle about what kind of an America we are going to live in going forward. Are we going to live in one where folks take care of you but they tell you the manner they're going to do it? Or do we live in one where we help you along but you get to make those fundamental choices for you? It's clear to me why my constituents sent me to Washington as a first-time elected official this year. It's clear to me where the 2012 budget proposal takes this House and takes this country. I implore my colleagues, we can absolutely argue about your plan as it was introduced in the President's health care bill and our plan as it was introduced in the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, but let's not, let's not make it anything other than what it is. It's a difference in two visions. Yours saves Medicare for 6 years. Ours saves Medicare for a lifetime. And, Madam Chair, I think we owe the voters no less.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I am glad to be able to take the floor after the Member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) talking about energy because it's something that's on everybody's mind today. He is talking about nuclear energy, and he concluded with the remarks, What can we do to find American-made energy solutions? What can we do to find American energy independence? What can we do to provide good-paying American jobs? Folks, those things are all intertwined. There is not a product that we produce in this country that does not have an energy component to it. We have to have that access to energy in order to have access to jobs. That's why I'm so proud that in the tail end of last week and the beginning of this week, that's what we're focused on here on the House floor. What can we do to find those domestic energy solutions? There aren't going to be as many folks here, Madam Speaker, as I look around the gallery, who might have been alive in the 1970s. Madam Speaker, I think you and I were here then. We remember some of those gas lines. Would you believe that we bring less American oil to market today than we did in 1970? Would you believe it's almost half? We have been blessed in this country with domestic energy resources the likes of which no other country on the planet can claim. And yet we seem to be doing everything that we can to keep those resources in the ground and, instead, send precious American dollars overseas, often to folks who don't like us and would like to see our demise. Folks, energy independence isn't just a tag line. It's not just about $4 prices at the pump. It's about national security. It's about, what is our vision for the future of this country? Is it a vision of dependency upon our enemies overseas? Or is it a vision of independence where we're bringing American resources out of the ground with American workers, creating American capital? It's not just, Drill, drill, drill. I'm a big believer in drill here, drill now. But that's not because we're not sensitive to what's happening in a changing energy environment across this planet. Would you believe, for example, that in this country, we use less energy per capita today, fewer Btus today, than we did just 5 years ago, than we did 10 years ago, than we did 20 years ago, than we did 30 years ago. To say that we need energy independence, to say that national security depends on getting our resources out of the ground is not to say that conservation isn't a part of the model as well. It is. We're doing it, we're doing it successfully, and we should continue to do it, but we have to get our resources out of the ground. Would you believe that as a percentage of the energy that we use in this country, that petroleum is in decline? Each and every year, we use less oil per capita than we used the year before, but that doesn't mean that we don't still need to get American oil out of the ground. In fact, we are importing more oil today than we did just 10 years ago, than we did just 20 years ago. We have the resources here. We know of more oil that's in the ground in America today than we have ever known of before, and yet we choose to send our dollars overseas to import that energy instead. There are three bills we're working on here, Madam Speaker, and you know them well. H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act. Can you believe, Madam Speaker, that in a time of record-high gas prices that we have the second-largest shallow water drilling operation in the country going out of business for lack of work? For lack of work. Oil prices are headed back towards historic highs, and American drillers are going out of business for lack of work. And it's not just the company, Madam Speaker; it is each and every one of the American men and women who work on those drill rigs who are out of work because we can't get permits issued out of Washington, D.C. Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act. H.R. 1231, Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act. We have these resources. We have this national security need. We have men and women who want to go to work to solve that need, and we won't let the permits out of Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. has not been the solution here. Washington, D.C. has been the problem. Folks, if what you want to say is, We're going to pass a bill on this floor that's going to ban automobiles, and we just won't use any more gasoline, fair enough. If what you want to say is, We're going to pass a bill on this floor that's going to ban plastic and say, we're just not going to produce any more, fair enough. If you are going to pass a bill that says, We're not going to produce any more fertilizer in this country, who needs it, fair enough. But until you do--and I would vote ``no'' on each one of those proposals--but until you do, we need American oil, and we need to get it out of the ground, and we need to get it out of the ground now. Madam Speaker, I am tremendously grateful for the leadership you have shown in bringing these bills to the floor, and I thank you for the time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel Bill Williams and the Georgia Army National Guard Agricultural Development Team. Colonel Williams will be leading the Guard's Agricultural Development Team on a year-long deployment to Afghanistan at the end of April 2011. These brave citizen-soldiers are not only going into the theater to assist our men and women on the ground as they engage insurgents and terrorists but also improve the lives of Afghani citizens. They will work to build an agricultural and irrigation system where local Afghani farmers can grow fruit and vegetables, raise livestock, and better manage limited water resources. Their efforts will create a stable, vital agricultural base and water resources system that can support the Afghani people and serve as a springboard for further economic growth in rural Afghan villages. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this kind of development and reconstruction. A stable, productive Afghani agricultural sector will be a counter-balance to the Taliban and the illicit production of opium, both of which are prevalent in rural parts of that nation and a threat to the security of the Afghan people and our military mission there. We have a chance to counteract these activities by collaborating with the Afghani people to find the tools and the seeds to grow their own democracy. In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Georgia Army National Guard will also deliver clean water to more and more Afghani communities. By simply treating and transporting clean water to these communities, we will dramatically improve the health of the overall population, helping to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people. We have a real chance to turn the tide, and the Georgia Army National Guard Agricultural Development Team will continue that fight. I am so proud to see our Georgia military men and women meeting this challenge and leading the effort in the coming year to further transform Afghani society. It is my hope that through the work of the Agricultural Development Team and their Afghani partners, Afghanistan will develop an agrarian foundation that will not only bear food, but also the fruits of liberty, prosperity, and security in the coming years. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Georgia Army National Guard Agricultural Development Team for their outstanding service to our country and for their commitment to growing the seeds of democracy. May God bless them on their mission in Afghanistan and return them safely home.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I will yield to have the gentleman tell me if anyone age 55 or older will be affected.

Mr. WOODALL. I will yield to the gentleman to tell me if anyone age 55 years of age or over will have their benefits changed in any way.

Mr. WOODALL. If the ranking member is not going to answer my question, I will not yield. You should be ashamed. I reclaim my time.