Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Chair, I am glad I had the opportunity to speak after my freshman colleague from Wisconsin. I was down on the floor earlier. I walked back to my office. I asked Mr. Maroney, who is answering the phones in my office, What are you hearing about? Are you hearing about the continuing resolution? He said, No. I said, Are you hearing about the budget debate? He said, Not really. I said, What are you hearing about? He said, I am hearing from seniors who are scared. I am hearing from folks on Medicare who are scared. Now, who does that surprise? It doesn't surprise me, and I don't know what the goal was when we went down this scare tactic path. I will say to the ranking member, I know you know better. You've got a persuasive case to make, a persuasive case to make for why your vision is better than our vision, but you're scaring people.

Mr. WOODALL. I reclaim my time to say we have honest debates here. We have honest disagreements here. But folks are scared because you're scaring them and you know good and well you don't need to.

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the chairman for yielding. I tell you we see a lot of shrill things here on the House floor. I want to have a slightly different voice. I just want to tell you how proud I am to be here--how proud I am to be here because, as the gentleman who previously said very accurately, I ran on two things: I ran on cutting spending and I ran on creating jobs. And tonight, because of the hard work of my chairman on the Budget Committee, my colleagues on the Budget Committee, I get to vote tomorrow to do just that--just that. I have been here a hundred days, and I get a vote to change the direction of this country, from driving us off the edge of the cliff to restoring the freedom and economic success that we're known for the world around. A hundred days and I get to make that choice. Now, I'm thrilled, in the spirit of openness, that we have some alternatives. If you want to raise taxes, you're going to have budgets to get to do that. But if you want to close $2.9 trillion in tax expenditures, in loopholes, in lobbyist-funded giveaways, you've got one budget to choose from, and that's the Ryan budget. We go after those items that, for whatever reason, folks hadn't gone after in years past. We do those things that, for whatever reason, people couldn't find the courage to do in years past. Vote after vote after vote I presume people had to vote on things they didn't like to vote on. They didn't want to run up spending. They didn't want to increase the debt limit. They didn't want to do those things. But they had to do it. Folks, tonight I'm here to talk about something I want to do. I cannot wait to come to this floor tomorrow and cast a vote for my children, for America's grandchildren, for the future of this land. And that's a vote in favor of the Ryan budget. I am grateful to my colleagues for giving me that opportunity.

Mr. WOODALL. I want to associate myself with Mr. Duffy's comments that we could get together and solve this problem, or we can just choose to scare people.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding. We've got a good freshman class up there on the Rules Committee. And what we've been able to do under the leadership of Chairman Dreier is bring open processes to the floor. Can you imagine, we've got a multitude of budgets down here on the floor. If you want to look at the Congressional Black Caucus budget, you can vote for that today. If you want to vote for the Republican Study Committee budget, you can vote for that today. If you want to vote for Mr. Van Hollen's budget, you can vote for that today. You have your choices today about what your priorities are and about what your vision for America's future is. And when we have that conversation--and we've had it in the Budget Committee. I'm proud to be able to serve on both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee--we've had that on the Budget Committee, an honest back and forth. So it pains me to come to the floor today and hear what can only be described as nonsense. Nonsense. Have you heard anybody on the House floor today say that the Republican budget would change things for seniors? Have you heard that today? I believe you have because I've heard it over and over again. The truth of the matter is the Republican budget changes nothing, nothing for seniors. It says you don't even have to be a senior. If you're age 55 or older, we change nothing in Medicare for you. Nothing. Yet my colleagues on the left are scaring today's seniors, scaring the folks who have the fewest number of choices in our society, scaring them into believing that folks are coming for them. Not true. Our colleagues on the left would say $6,000 is what we're going to charge additional to seniors. Well, two things: Number one, again, we're not doing anything for seniors. You've got to be 55 or younger. You've got to be my age to even begin to have a program change. And more importantly, that $6,000 figure comes from a CBO report looking at things 12 years down the road, which is 2 years after the Medicare program has gone bankrupt entirely. Hear that. Hear that misinformation: $6,000 per beneficiary, a number that comes from a report looking at the program 2 years after our trustees tell us it's going to go bankrupt entirely. Folks, this is about choices. This is about your vision for America. You have to put forward your plan. I applaud Mr. Van Hollen for putting a plan forward. He could have said, no, I don't have any ideas. That's what the White House has chosen to do. Mr. Van Hollen did better. The Congressional Black Caucus did better. The Republican Study Committee did better. Look at these budgets. Look at the open process. Make the choice for you about what you believe a better America would look like. The Wall Street Journal talked about the Path to Prosperity and called it the most serious attempt at reforming government in a generation. It absolutely is. I applaud Chairman Ryan for getting that done. I thank my friend from South Carolina for the time, and I appreciate the Rules Committee giving us this open process that we have today.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Tax Day. I am sure there are some folks out there who haven't quite filled out all of their forms yet, who haven't quite finished up all of that paperwork yet, but it doesn't have to be that way. There are alternatives to change the Tax Code in this country, and one of those alternatives is the Fair Tax, H.R. 25, which was introduced in this House. The Fair Tax, H.R. 25, is the only bill in Congress to eliminate the incentive that American companies have to move American jobs overseas. The Fair Tax is the only bill in Congress to change the Tax Code so that those jobs that have moved overseas and so that those dollars that have gone overseas have an incentive to return. The Fair Tax is the only bill in Congress that abolishes the payroll tax--that 15.3 percent FICA tax, which is the highest tax that 80 percent of working American families pay. The Fair Tax, H.R. 25, is a different way and a better way, and we can make April 15 just another spring day.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, you've heard it a lot of different ways this morning. Our challenge is not that we tax too little. Our challenge is that we spend too much, and we're taking steps to make that happen. But we do tax incorrectly. We do tax in a way that challenges the patience, the tolerance and the intellect of millions of Americans every year. We're coming up on that. One week from today is Tax Day, April 15, that day that folks dread year after year after year after year. One of the things that makes Tax Day so complicated is the exceptions, the exemptions, the loopholes and those special favors that get written into the Code year after year after year after year. I want to associate myself with the comments from the previous speaker, the gentleman from California. And we've talked about the very serious--the very serious--discussion of the budget that's been going on in the Budget Committee. I'm pleased to be a member of the Budget Committee. Bloomberg came out with a report this morning, $2.9 trillion in special tax breaks, loopholes and exemptions erased in that budget. Not that taxes go up for Americans, but that taxes get simpler for Americans and fairer for Americans by taking away $2.9 trillion in special favors and special exemptions. There's a proposal that goes even further, and I want to mention it now a week out from Tax Day, and that's H.R. 25, the Fair Tax. It's a bill that started with only two cosponsors, one Democrat and one Republican. It grew to two Democrats and two Republicans, and then it grew to four Democrats and four Republicans. Now there are 60 cosponsors in the House, five in the United States Senate, the most widely cosponsored fundamental tax reform bill in this Congress. And it does this: It abolishes income taxes and replaces them with consumption taxes, because the power to tax is the power to destroy. And what we destroy in this country is productivity. We're the only OECD country on the planet that doesn't have a consumption tax, the only one that punishes our producers instead of taxing our consumers. And it eliminates not $2.9 trillion in loopholes as the budget does, but 100 percent of every corporate loophole. We've heard it on this floor again and again: Loopholes for oil companies, loopholes for this company. It eliminates every single corporate tax break in existence today. And it eliminates them for individuals as well in favor of a simple, low-rate personal consumption tax. On Tax Day, we talk about the income tax. The largest tax 80 percent of American families pay is the payroll tax. Everybody in here who's got a job has seen that FICA line. You may not add it up, but it is the largest tax that 80 percent of Americans pay. And there is not a single bill on this floor that deals with that except the Fair Tax, which abolishes that tax so you get to keep what you earn so that nobody touches your paycheck before you do. As you finalize your tax forms over the next 7 days on your way to April 15, I want you to think about what could be different. I want you to think about how, with the passage of H.R. 25, April 15 could just be another spring day.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, the report (H. Rept. 112-53) accompanying H. Res. 200, filed last evening, inadvertently omitted the full descriptions of votes No. 65 and 66 of the Committee. The full descriptions and totals are as follows: Rules Committee Record Vote No. 65 Motion by Mr. Hastings of Florida to amend the rule to make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for amendment #1, offered by Rep. Doyle (PA), which would reinstate the ability of the FCC to guard against internet access providers from blocking a consumer's access to lawful internet content. Defeated: 3-7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ms. Foxx.......................... Nay Mr. McGovern........ Yea Mr. Bishop of Utah................ Nay Mr. Hastings of Yea Florida. Mr. Woodall....................... Nay Mr. Polis........... Yea Mr. Nugent........................ Nay .................. Mr. Scott of South Carolina....... Nay .................. Mr. Webster....................... Nay .................. Mr. Dreier, Chairman.............. Nay .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ rules committee record vote no. 66 Motion by Mr. Polis to amend the rule to make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for amendment #2, offered by Rep. Matsui (CA), which would preserve the ``transparency rule'' adopted by the FCC as part of the Open Internet Order requiring broadband providers to make available their network management practices as well as performance and commercial terms so that consumers can make informed choices. Defeated: 3-7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ms. Foxx.......................... Nay Mr. McGovern........ Yea Mr. Bishop of Utah................ Nay Mr. Hastings of Yea Florida. Mr. Woodall....................... Nay Mr. Polis........... Yea Mr. Nugent........................ Nay .................. Mr. Scott of South Carolina....... Nay .................. Mr. Webster....................... Nay .................. Mr. Dreier, Chairman.............. Nay .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from the committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 200 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is a promo out these days for a new television show that's coming on. It's about the CIA and chronicles the fellow's first day at the job at the CIA. He walks in and he looks around and he can't believe the disarray that he sees there. And his senior adviser there steps up and he says, son, have you ever walked into a post office and said, my gosh, I have stepped into the future? And the answer is, no, the government is not the location where innovation thrives. To hear this conversation today about how we need government regulation to protect the Internet, Mr. Speaker, we need to protect the Internet from government regulation, and that's why we are here today with this underlying resolution. This FCC proposal is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. To quote my friend from Colorado, as he was quoting the investment banks, these official rules are around what is already being done in the private sector. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Mr. Speaker, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist using authority that the FCC does not have. It's interesting being down here today, as my colleague from Colorado talks about all the big businesses that have bought in and all the investment banks that bought in. I have to say I don't give two hoots that big business and investment banks have bought in. If the authority does not exist to do it, then it should not be done. Over and over again, Mr. Speaker, we hear from this administration about how they can help, how they can help to solve problems, problems that exist and apparently now problems that don't exist. If the authority does not exist, they cannot be allowed to regulate in this area, and that's why the subcommittee has brought this forward. So we have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist using authority that doesn't exist, and where does this lead us? I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, from the FCC order dated December 21 of last year: Finally, we decline to apply our rules directly to coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, and other entities that acquire their Internet service from a broadband provider. Although broadband providers that offer such services are subject to these rules, we note that addressing traffic is a legitimate network management purpose for these premise operators. Authority that does not exist and the FCC says, in its benevolence, in its benevolence, that at this time it chooses, it chooses, Mr. Speaker, not to regulate the way that coffee shops, bookstores, and airlines provide Internet service to their customers. Folks, this is the camel's nose under the tent. That is why we have to be vigilant. It doesn't matter if we like the underlying rule. It doesn't matter if the authority does not exist, Mr. Speaker. We are obligated as one of three branches of government, we are obligated to step in where regulatory authority exceeds its bounds. Now, as we have said, the courts have already looked at this decision and decided, as we have, that the FCC does not have authority to act in this area, solution to a problem that doesn't exist, using authority that it doesn't have that starts to pave the way to regulate coffee shops, airlines and bookstores. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple rule for a simple bill. We have talked so much about 2,000-page bills with lots of hidden consequences. We have talked broadband section 1099 of the health care act now being repealed and passed now by the Senate and going on to the President's desk. I want to read to you this bill in its entirety if you will permit me the time: ``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rules submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices, and such rule shall have no force or effect.'' That's it. That's it, eight lines, ``no force or effect.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support from my colleagues for this rule that will then bring to the floor H.J. Res. 37 and allow, in its brevity, its complete and total consideration. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to a thoughtful member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, what we have today is a resolution that comes under the Congressional Review Act, an act passed by a Republican Congress and President Clinton that gives the Congress the opportunity to look at the regulatory burdens imposed by the executive branch and, in a simple up-or-down vote, say do we want this regulation on the books or do we not. Today that regulation is the net neutrality regulation the FCC has promulgated. H.J. Res. 37, the underlying bill that this rule allows us to consider, disapproves of the December 21 FCC rule concerning net neutrality on the basis that Congress did not authorize the FCC to regulate in this area. According to a D.C. Circuit Court decision in April of last year, the FCC failed to demonstrate that it had the authority to regulate Internet network management. Until such time as the FCC is given that authority by this Congress, we must reject any rules that it promulgates in this area. Now, we will hear a lot today in the underlying resolution about the effective compromise that was crafted by the FCC. We will hear a lot about the light touch that was used by the FCC to wade into this area. But, Mr. Speaker, if you don't have the authority to do it, you don't have the authority to do it. It is Congress' responsibility to delegate that authority. If folks like the underlying rule proposed by the FCC, they are welcome to bring that back as a congressional resolution. This bill today is about congressional prerogative: Will we or will we not stand up to an executive branch that does not have the authority to regulate? We have done a sad job in this Congress in years past, Mr. Speaker, of providing that oversight responsibility. Republicans had the responsibility of providing oversight to the Bush administration, and we didn't always live up to that measure. Democrats had the responsibility to provide oversight to the Obama administration, and they haven't always lived up to that example. We have the opportunity today to begin that step forward. Until Congress acts to delegate that responsibility, the Internet should continue as the Internet has grown and always continued as an area free of government interference, as an opportunity for entrepreneurs and investors and students and the elderly to be out there using the Internet as they see fit, free from the hand of government regulation. I would also like to comment briefly on the nature of this rule. It is a closed rule. I came to this Congress to advocate in favor of an open process, Mr. Speaker, but it needs to be understood that the Congressional Review Act is a closed process by nature. What my constituents said to me is, Rob, if you are doing something complicated, I want you to open up the House floor and have as many amendments and as much discussion as you can because that is the right way to do things. But, what I would really prefer is you bring one bill with one idea and have an up-or-down vote for all the world to see. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the call that we have responded to today: a simple bill, one page long that says the FCC does not have the delegated congressional authority to act in this area; and as such, their regulations shall be null and void. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to a gentlelady from the committee of jurisdiction, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds just to say in this theme of folks with the best of intentions ending up with the tremendous burdens on small business, I have just been informed and would like to inform this body that the Senate has passed H.R. 4, the House's repeal of the burdensome 1099 regulation requirements in ObamaCare, by a vote of 87-12. The bill is now on its way to the President for his signature. This represents a huge win for American small businesses, a huge win for the abolition of burdensome government regulation, and the first official partial repeal of ObamaCare that will go to the President's desk and become law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as tax day is fast approaching. We've heard a lot about the budget that's being introduced today. I'm a proud supporter of this budget because in this country we don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. But what we do have is a problem with the way that we contribute revenue to this country. There is a better way, and it is called the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax will take the burden off American taxpayers paying on what they earn and change it to a burden on what they spend. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and when we tax income and productivity, we destroy that income and productivity. Do you want to talk about jobs in this country? Do you want to talk about a magnet for jobs in this country? The Fair Tax is the only bill in Congress that abolishes every single corporate tax break, tax loophole and tax preference. It abolishes the corporate income tax rate and tells international businesses they can locate here with the most powerful, hardest working workers on this planet. Folks, H.R. 25, the Fair Tax, is a better way. As you fill out your tax forms this year, think about how we could do it differently next time around.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I thank the Speaker. I'm glad I was able to get in on the tail end of that previous Special Order. As a proud resident of the State of Georgia, of course we have the King Center open to folks each and every day of the week. And if folks have not had a chance to go by and see that, it is really a fantastic testimony to the life and times of a gentleman whose true impact on this country we may not know for generations and generations to come. I could not be prouder to have that in Georgia, so I very much appreciate being able to listen in. I, too, am down here to talk about opportunity tonight. It is April 4, it's tax season, and the Fair Tax is a proposal that is near and dear to my heart and a proposal that I believe has its time coming in opportunity. The largest tax that 80 percent of American families pay, Mr. Speaker, is the payroll tax. That's the FICA tax that our teenagers begin to see when they take on their part-time jobs. Eighty percent of American families pay more in that FICA tax than they do in income taxes or any other tax on their ledger, and yet we spend all of our time talking about income taxes. We rarely take a look at the payroll tax. We'll spend hours on the House floor talking about tax credits and tax deductions and tax expenditures and tax exemptions. We'll talk about lobbyists and the tax opportunities that they're looking for for their big business clients. We'll talk about loopholes and all of the unfairness of the United States Tax Code, but we rarely talk about the payroll tax. It has been my commitment here in this month of April--which is one of the few times during the year that everyone is willing to focus on taxes for an extended period of time--to come down here and implore my colleagues to take a look at the Fair Tax and join us in our fight to repeal the income tax--both the personal income tax and the corporate income tax--the payroll tax, the capital gains tax, the gift tax, dividend tax, estate tax, self-employment tax, and on and on, to replace them all with a single-rate personal consumption tax, the Fair Tax. I was talking with a CEO in my district while I was home who said, Rob, we're trying to leave America just as fast as we can. You've passed some laws recently that make it a littler harder for us to do that, it's going to take us some time, but we're leaving as fast as we can because America is just not a climate to do business in anymore. We heard my colleagues who spoke previously say that our unemployment isn't because people are being fired; it's because new people are not being hired, and the folks who generate those jobs are the small businesses in this country. How do you generate those jobs when you have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, when you have some of the highest self-employment taxes in the world, and on and on and on? We can do a lot in this country to destroy success. We can't do a lot to create success. We have a platform here in this country already on which anyone, by the sweat of their brow, can make something of themselves. And yet one of the founders of Home Depot--a very proud company from the great State of Georgia--wrote in The Wall Street Journal last year that if he and his three colleagues got together today to try to start that company they would fail, that they could not succeed in starting a company in today's business environment, the regulatory environment, the labor environment, and the tax environment. Here in April I'll be returning to the floor each and every day through April 15 to talk about one little part of the Fair Tax. We talked a little bit last Friday about how it does away with every single corporate exemption on the books--every loophole, every credit, every favor, absolutely every one. It's the only bill in Congress that does that, Mr. Speaker. It eliminates every single corporate loophole in the Tax Code because we know that businesses don't pay taxes anyway. We eliminate the corporate income tax, and we allow that to be paid at the personal consumer level. Tonight, I just want to talk about jobs. I want to talk about that jobs don't come from the Federal Government, that jobs don't even come from big corporations. Jobs come from small entrepreneurs and risk- takers. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and we have used the power to tax income, to tax that productiveness that each and every American goes to work for every day. Our Founding Fathers had a different view; they taxed consumption. They put tariffs on the goods that they imported from overseas under the theory that if you had enough money to spend on a silver tea set from England, you had enough money to participate in funding your Federal Government. That all changed in the early part of the 20th century, and we have an opportunity to change it back, H.R. 25, the Fair Tax--the single most largely co-sponsored tax bill in either the House or the Senate, more cosponsors on that bill than any other piece of fundamental tax legislation. We need more help. Today, we have 59 cosponsors of that legislation, and we need more help to make the Fair Tax a reality. We'll have, over the next 15 days, those opportunities. You can visit our Web page at Woodall.house.gov. You can visit the Fair Tax folks' Web page at fairtax.org. Come and see what the Fair Tax offers in terms of opportunity. The current Tax Code brings power to this city. Whether you sit on the left or whether you sit on the right, something happens when you get to Washington and you suddenly believe you're the smartest person in the room, and you begin to find ways to manipulate people's behavior in hopes that you can make them happy too. Well, I could create a world my father would love and my mother would hate. We're not in the business of making people happy. We're in the business of ensuring opportunity. We can absolutely ensure that everyone in this country is poor. We cannot ensure that everyone is rich. We can only provide opportunity. The Fair Tax provides that opportunity by completely removing the impediments that are there to growth today. Eighty percent of American families pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. As you fill out your tax forms headed towards April 15, I want you to look at that income tax figure. And if you're self- employed, you'll see the self-employment tax figure there beside it. Eighty percent of American families never get touched by a tax bill that we do here. As we move the Fair Tax forward, we're going to change that, and we're going to make America an opportunity society once again. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful to you for indulging me this evening to talk a little bit about a passion that's near and dear to my heart. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

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

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I wish I had more time to refute that misdirection. What we're asking here is that we pass the only bill that has been passed in either house of Congress. I don't care if the Senate passes H.R. 1 or not. Pass something. Do I need to bring the chart back up of what the Senate has done already? They have done nothing. They need to do something. This bill prods them to do it. I reserve the balance of my time.