[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 177 (Friday, November 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7885-H7888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE FAIR TAX

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  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.

                              {time}  1550

  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

[[Page H7886]]

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.

                              {time}  1600

  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. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I'd pose a question back. What do you think about 
taking it to zero?
  Mr. WOODALL. Taking it to zero?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Yes.
  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. KING of Iowa. Of course we know if the gentlemen would yield----

[[Page H7887]]

  Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. The folks that are buying food in McDonald's are 
going to pay the tax if we try to get it from McDonald's. So we know 
corporations don't pay taxes; they are aggregators of taxes that are 
paid by individuals, by consumers on the last stop. And so they're 
efficient aggregators of those taxes. They are actually the tax 
collectors on behalf of the Federal Government. The corporations that 
collect taxes don't pay them; they transfer it through them by the way 
they charge us for the $152 billion a year that it costs to comply with 
the Federal Tax Code.
  And so I find it an act of frustration to seek to try to collect 
taxes from corporations when what I'm really doing is adding to the 
administrative costs for corporations so they add the taxes and the 
administrative costs on to the cost of the goods that have to be 
competitive in this marketplace, and that makes it that individuals pay 
taxes. But it also means that jobs go overseas because corporations 
that are taxed in America are at a disadvantage to the corporations 
that are overseas who aren't very good aggregators of America's tax 
dollars, and so they have to raise the taxes here more.
  That's kind of the vision that I see that I would lay out here for 
the gentleman from Georgia. And we've got a long ways to go before 
America embraces the concept that I think will solve this problem.
  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. KING of Iowa. Just to explore that a little further and that 
would be, looking at the corporate tax structure, there's corporate 
income tax, and then there are all of the wages that are paid out in 
payroll taxes to the employees. And of course one of the most 
regressive taxes we've is the payroll tax. And so one might argue that, 
well, those taxes are paid by the corporation, that half of the 
payroll, that .0765 that I have multiplied so many times with my 
employees that I've had over the decades. And of course that .0765 
which is half of the 15.3 percent in payroll tax, half comes out of the 
employer, half comes out of the employee.
  However, the half that comes out of the employer would be wages for 
the employee because it is a cost of doing business, it's a cost of 
competitiveness. And so when we add into the price of the goods and 
services provided by corporations, and I don't mean just corporations, 
they can be LLCs, they can be partnerships, sole proprietorships, you 
name it, a business entity that hires employees and/or provides goods 
and services for retail market or supplies to those who do, all of that 
structure of their taxes is built into the price.
  And a fair amount of research brings us to a number that is generally 
considered to be about 22 percent of the retail price of goods and 
services sold in the United States as the tax component paid by the 
suppliers that get it into the marketplace and in the end paid by the 
consumer.
  So those corporations that move overseas have a different tax 
structure, but those products that come in from overseas have a 28 
percent marketing advantage over the products produced here in the 
United States because they don't have the burden of U.S. corporate 
taxes, and that includes the payroll taxes that are part of that taxing 
structure.
  So I'd say that if we can remove the taxes from productivity in 
America, we end up with a 28 percent marketing advantage for U.S.-made 
products over those made in foreign countries.
  And by the way, one more thing: I would not have picked up a nice 
Georgia company like Coca-Cola to use them as an example, but then 
that's just 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.

                              {time}  1610

  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. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield, I'd slip another 
anecdote into this that comes from just last weekend. I was over in 
eastern Iowa doing an event, and I happened to get reacquainted with a 
young gentleman by the name of Michael Dicks. Now, he is 13 years old; 
soon he'll be 14. But when he was 8 years old--I've told this story in 
the Congressional Record in the past--he saved up his money to go buy a 
little box of Skittles. So he had his change counted out just right in 
his pocket--89 cents for a box of Skittles--and had to reach up to the 
counter, I presume, and got his Skittles off the shelf and put them up 
on the counter. And he counted out his 89 cents and the checker rang it 
up and said, that will be 96 cents. And he said, but the price says 89 
cents. And the checker said, but you have to pay the tax--that's the 
sales taxes in Iowa--so that's 96 cents, young man.
  And he turned to his dad and he said, Dad, I have to pay taxes on 
Skittles? What a painful experience for an 8-

[[Page H7888]]

year-old young man. But think of what that means if our taxes are 
transparent. That young man is going to grow up to be a conservative. 
He's going to put fewer demands on government. He's going to demand one 
thing--less taxes, less services. We're going to want to have more 
personal and individual responsibility, and we're going to let people 
provide for their own security in a lot of ways and achieve on their 
own. That is a cultural transformation that comes if you have a 
transparent tax and if you take the tax and stop punishing productivity 
and put it on consumption.
  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. KING of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I'm happy to yield.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. History is replete with the Founding Fathers, 
literary giants of the time, philosophers of the time, who looked at 
the Greek democracy and they were appalled at what it had produced. 
They produced for us a republic instead. But many of them spoke 
eloquently about what happens when the public would realize that a 
majority of them could vote themselves benefits from the public 
treasury. Some of them said democracy ceases to exist; some of them 
said that will destroy our republic. But I want to guess that most of 
the people that were providing the wisdom at the time commented on 
their fear that this country would move towards a majority voting 
themselves benefits from the public treasury.
  So that is one of the reasons that we have a Republic instead of a 
democracy is because those of us who are elected as representatives of 
the citizens of the Republic are to have a higher responsibility than 
to listen to, let's say, people who want the fruits of someone else's 
labor and don't want to labor themselves.
  And so we're at this situation now where, in the early part of this 
country, there was a policy that you had to be a land-owning male of 
age and other qualifications in order to vote because they wanted the 
public policy to be established by people that had skin in the game. 
And today we saw a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget 
fail here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I'd like to 
have seen a stronger one, but it failed here on the floor of the House. 
And that was a constitutional amendment with a cap at 18 percent of GDP 
and a supermajority to raise taxes.
  Put some of that philosophy back in where it requires a supermajority 
to raise taxes, there is a restraint there that brings back some of 
that philosophy that helps offset the disadvantage that the working 
American has today who's paying those taxes. Your barber is at a 
disadvantage because some of the hair that he cuts is of people that 
aren't working. I'd say at least one out of every three heads of hair 
that your barber cuts is somebody that is in that role of 100 million 
Americans of working age who are not in the workforce, many of them are 
voting, they are voting themselves benefits from the public trough.
  And I'd suggest that we take the tax off of productivity in America, 
stop punishing production, put it over on consumption. And I'm just 
looking around for a bill number that I could attach myself to because 
I'm drawing a blank.
  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. KING of Iowa. And I appreciate the opportunity to be your partner 
in this.
  And I would say to the folks on either side of the argument that 
disagree, they're both wrong, whether they're from the left or from the 
right. And the bottom line is this: the Fair Tax does everything good 
that anybody's tax proposal does that is good; it does them all and it 
does them all better. And I'm happy to take that debate anywhere in 
this land and have folks that will try that on and we'll finish second 
in that debate.
  I quickly yield back because the gavel is in the air.
  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.

                          ____________________