[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21273-21278]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1420
                                FAIRTAX

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is recognized 
for the remainder of the time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the time.
  I want to get to tax policy here in just a moment, but I want to take 
just a few minutes, having just passed the appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2012, to talk about how long that's been.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I know you have been a proponent of regular order 
since you came to this body. But as I went back and looked to see when 
was the last time the House was able to operate not under a continuing 
resolution but under a regular appropriations process, Mr. Speaker, 
it's been since December of 2009. December of 2009 is when we last 
passed an appropriations bill.
  Now granted appropriations bills come in all sorts and sizes. The one 
we're dealing with today came in the large size. We'll call that the 
jumbo size. I know the minority whip shares my passion for that. My 
hope is we will be able to get to regular order next year and go 
through each appropriations bill one by one by one.
  But what I say to you, Mr. Speaker, is that I came to this body a 
year ago to make a difference, and I wanted to make all the difference 
last January, I'll be honest with you. And when I couldn't do it all in 
January, I hoped that we could do it all in February. When we couldn't 
do it all in February, I hoped we could do it all in March. And, of 
course, we were able to pass the budget here in the House, the budget 
that took the first step towards reforming entitlements that we've seen 
come out of this body since I would argue Lyndon Johnson began these 
programs in the 1960s. But we have begun to make a difference.
  As I look at this stack of papers here that represent the spending, 
the appropriations process, for 2012, Mr. Speaker, it's the first time 
in 2 years we've had that. Of course, over a thousand days since the 
Senate has been able to pass a budget. We have made progress. As 2011 
comes to a close, I hope we can celebrate some of those successes along 
the way.
  Because in terms of real spending, Mr. Speaker, in this document what 
we see is for the second year in a row, the first time since World War 
II, two consecutive years, Mr. Speaker, with this leadership team and 
this appropriations committee and this bipartisan House, we've been 
able to reduce Federal discretionary spending--$95 billion.
  A lot of folks say, well, Rob, is that going to be funny math? Is 
that going to be just some items but not all items? As you know, Mr. 
Speaker, that's everything. That's the regular appropriations process, 
that's the so-called emergency spending, that's the war spending, what 
they call the OCO account. That's everything. And we've brought it down 
$95 billion in just 1 year, just the 1 year you and I have been here, 
Mr. Speaker.
  But it can't all be done in appropriations bills, Mr. Speaker, you 
know. Only about a third of all of the money that goes out the door 
here in Washington, D.C., goes out the door through this process that 
we did today, the appropriations process. The rest of it goes out 
through mandatory spending programs--Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security, interest on the national debt--those mandatory spending 
programs.
  In fact, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we could zero out everything else. 
We could decide there will be no Congress, there will be no White 
House, there will be no FBI, there will be no Army, there will be no 
Navy, no Marine Corps, no Coast Guard, no Air Force, no parks, no 
Environmental Protection Agency, no Education Department, no nothing. 
We could zero out absolutely everything that we fund through the 
appropriations process and the budget still wouldn't be balanced. Not 
cutting it. Zeroing it out. And we still couldn't balance the budget 
just on appropriations bills alone.
  There's two sides of every budget balancing operation, Mr. Speaker, 
as you know. There's the spending side, and there's the revenue side. I 
want to talk about the revenue side here for just a minute.
  I put up a poster here, Mr. Speaker. You can't see it from where you 
sit. It says H.R. 25, the FairTax. I'm going to leave it up here the 
whole half hour, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 25, named the FairTax, is 
the only tax bill in Congress, the only piece of legislation on either 
the House side or the Senate

[[Page 21274]]

side that goes into the Tax Code and says every exception, exemption, 
exclusion, special carve-outs, special favor, anything that gives you a 
break over your neighbor, your company an advantage over the one next 
door, all of those tax breaks, special exceptions, loopholes--gone.
  It's the only bill in either the House or the Senate that does it.
  But that's not even the good news, Mr. Speaker. The good news is it's 
also the most popular fundamental tax bill in either the House or 
Senate as well. That's right. More Members of this body have 
cosponsored the FairTax than any other fundamental tax reform 
legislation that's been introduced here. And more United States 
Senators in the other body have cosponsored their version of the 
FairTax than any other fundamental tax reform proposal in the Senate.
  Now, why is that important? Why is it important to end all the 
loopholes?
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the chart I have here is the cost of tax 
expenditures. Now tax expenditures--I've got to tell you that's a tough 
word in conservative circles because the government doesn't actually 
have any money. As you know, Mr. Speaker, every nickel that gets spent 
in Washington, D.C., got sucked into Washington, D.C., from the 
heartland from back in my district in Georgia, from back in your 
district, from somebody's family kitchen table. Every nickel that gets 
spent in Washington got sucked up here to Washington, D.C.
  Oftentimes when we talk about taxes and we talk about giving people 
their money back, that's not spending, that's giving people their own 
hard-earned money back.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, when we have $15 trillion in national debt, when 
the amount of money we owe has eclipsed the entire productive capacity 
of America for an entire year, our entire annual GDP, the question now 
is when you have a tax break, when you agree to let a loophole into the 
Tax Code and let somebody else pay less, what happens? Well, what 
happens is that we then borrow more.
  That's a new debate, Mr. Speaker, because so often we can talk about 
tax cuts like the capital gains tax cut, like interest in dividends. We 
can talk about tax cuts that stimulate the economy, tax cuts that we 
think will help the economy grow faster and bring more revenue in; but 
all tax cuts aren't like that. Some tax cuts are just free money that 
you're giving away to people. Instead of passing a bill that says, I 
hereby give you a hundred dollars, it makes Congress feel better to 
pass a bill that says, I hereby tax you a hundred dollars less. I'm 
going to bill your neighbors for it, and I'm going to bill your kids 
for it, and I'm going to bill your grandkids for it, but I'm going to 
tax you a hundred dollars less.
  It's time, Mr. Speaker, for us as conservatives to be honest about 
where the Tax Code takes this country when we fill it full of loopholes 
and exemptions, because I will tell you, and you know better than most, 
Mr. Speaker, the art of the loophole is a time-honored Washington 
tradition.

                              {time}  1430

  It's not something that has been perfected by Republicans. It's not 
something that has been perfected by Democrats. It's not even something 
that was perfected by the Whigs, Mr. Speaker. It's been around as long 
as taxes have been around.
  And the folks who work in this town who try to manipulate the Tax 
Code have been around just as long as well.
  But let's look at this. Let's look at what's happening in 2012, just 
in 2012. The annual budget deficit for 2012, Mr. Speaker, is projected 
by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Research 
Service to be $1.1 trillion and change. It's a $1.1 trillion projected 
budget deficit for 2012.
  How much money do you think we've carved out in loopholes and 
exceptions and exemptions and carve-outs and deductions and credit? How 
much money do you think we've carved out? $1.065 trillion. That's a 
powerful message, Mr. Speaker. We could balance the budget this year if 
we eliminated every single tax break in the U.S. Tax Code.
  Now, that's a debate worth having.
  I don't want to eliminate every single deduction in the U.S. Tax 
Code, every single credit in the U.S. Tax Code. Every credit in the 
U.S. Tax Code is not created equally. Every deduction in the U.S. Tax 
Code is not created equally. There are some that help move this economy 
forward, and there are some that don't. That's the debate that we have, 
and this is the end result of it.
  What if we started over from scratch, Mr. Speaker? What if we started 
over from scratch with a bill like the FairTax--with something that 
ends all loopholes by starting a Tax Code that has no loopholes, that 
ends the loopholes by starting a Tax Code that has no loopholes?
  So often we talk about reforming the Tax Code as if we're stuck with 
the Tax Code that we've got. Are we? I tell you we're not. That's what 
this body does. This body could zero out the entire Tax Code and start 
again with a blank sheet of paper tomorrow. We have that ability; we 
have that authority; and we ought to use it.
  If we used it today--again, just to understand the magnitude of the 
exceptions and exemptions in the Tax Code, when you go and you say, 
Golly, I'm in the 15 percent bracket; I'm in the 25 percent bracket; 
I'm in the 10 percent bracket--when you talk about those things, the 
exceptions and exemptions total over $1 trillion in 2012 alone.
  Now, where are those? Where are those exceptions and exemptions 
going, Mr. Speaker? This next chart quantifies those.
  Number one, a list of exceptions and exemptions: exclusion of 
employer contributions for medical insurance premiums and medical care, 
$609 billion.
  Hear that, Mr. Speaker. Half of all the money that's included in 
loopholes, exemptions, exceptions, exclusions, carve-outs in the United 
States Tax Code goes to employers to subsidize their purchases of 
health insurance for their employees.
  Candidly, Mr. Speaker, I hear from employees day after day after day, 
and they say, Rob, how come I don't get those same tax breaks to 
purchase my own insurance? Why am I held captive--captive--by my 
employer? Since when did my employer get entrusted to make the best 
health decisions for me and my family?
  I will tell you that this provision that originated in World War II, 
with wage controls here in Congress, has led to so many of the third-
party payer problems, the health insurance inflation challenges, that 
we have in this country today.
  $609 billion is what you, Mr. Speaker, and your family and every 
other American family has to pay more because we've chosen to subsidize 
the business purchase of health insurance, which has the secondary and 
tertiary effects of trapping you in the job that you have because you 
can't get insurance at your next job; that has the effect of trapping 
you with the insurance policy that you have because your employer only 
offers one policy; that has the effect of your having a third-party 
payer so that it insulates you from the true cost of health care.
  Trouble after trouble after trouble with the American health care 
system comes from the United States Tax Code, Mr. Speaker--and we can 
do better.
  $357 billion is the deductibility of mortgage insurance on owner-
occupied homes. It's the mortgage insurance deduction--again, a 
deduction that millions of American families take advantage of. It's a 
deduction that, arguably, has a tremendous effect on the real estate 
market and on our real estate agents and on our construction 
companies--on and on and on. There are things tied into the 
deductibility of mortgage insurance.
  I remember once upon a time, Mr. Speaker, I was listening to an 
elected official talk. He had some folks in his office, and they said, 
We have to, have to, have to have the deductibility of mortgage 
insurance because the only reason we're able to sell real estate in 
this country is that folks are able to deduct their interest, and that 
makes a difference.
  This elected official said, Well, how about if we double interest 
rates? Is that going to help us sell more homes?--because it'll 
certainly help

[[Page 21275]]

folks deduct more interest. The answer was no.
  What we need are low interest rates to sell homes. We have low 
interest rates in this country today, but it's one of those things 
that, whether Republicans or Democrats, folks have agreed that we want 
to subsidize interest payments for folks who own homes. There is no 
such subsidy program for folks who rent.
  Is there a good reason for that? Maybe there is. Certainly, the 
argument has been made time and time again, but it's something that we 
have chosen to do in this country, Mr. Speaker.
  I don't know that, even for those Americans who defend this deduction 
to their dying breaths, do they know that it comprises a full third of 
the value of every deduction, exemption, exclusion that exists in the 
United States Tax Code, because it does--half of the deductions and 
exclusions come in from the mortgage interest deduction, others from 
the medical insurance and premium deductions for employers.
  Finally, of the biggest of our deductions and exemptions is the 
deduction for 401(k) plans, which is down here at the bottom, of $356 
billion--again, deducting money that we're saving, right?--because the 
power to tax is the power to destroy, Mr. Speaker--you know that--time 
and time again as you advocate for lower taxes, because what we tax 
today is income and what income is is a measure of your productivity, 
and what we need in today's economy is more productivity, not less 
productivity. The power to tax is the power to destroy.
  So rather than taxing savings--because we don't have enough 
retirement savings happening in this country, because we don't have 
enough thrifts happening in this country--we've given folks a tax break 
to encourage them to save.
  Is that a laudable public goal, Mr. Speaker? I'm sure it is. I'm sure 
that it is.
  We need more Americans to take saving for their retirement more 
seriously. The question is, What's the best way to get that done? Is it 
the United States Tax Code? But does America know that that's what's 
happening today, that today $356 billion of tax revenue is forgone in 
the name of encouraging retirement savings?
  It's a debate that has to happen in Washington, D.C.--these are the 
big ones--because so often we argue about things as if it's the little 
ones that find the dollar. It's not the little ones that find the 
dollar; it's the little ones that find the headlines. You don't find 
headlines about the mortgage interest deduction or the employer health 
insurance deduction. You find headlines about the ``bridge to nowhere'' 
and how in the world that got in the Transportation bill. But 
understand that this is big business.
  Now, I'm not here to pick on lobbyists, Mr. Speaker. I think 
lobbyists perform an important role in this town. I can't be an expert 
on every issue, and I can't hire staff. I've got Alex Poirot on my 
staff down here today. He knows a lot about a lot, but he can't know 
everything about everything. So, when I need more information, I will 
go to folks involved in the industry. We call those folks 
``lobbyists.''
  I'll tell you, the best lobbyists in the world are the ones who fly 
up from back home--the teachers in your community, the caretakers in 
your community, the physicians in your community. Those members of your 
community who come up here to talk about their issues are the best 
lobbyists in town, but there are firms up here that have lobbyists as 
well.

                              {time}  1440

  There is a line in ``The Distinguished Gentleman.'' Mr. Speaker, I'm 
going to date myself by going back to when Eddie Murphy's movies were 
funny, back in the day. ``The Distinguished Gentleman'' was a tale of a 
fellow who got elected to Congress by accident. And he was going along 
with the process, and he walked up to a powerful committee chairman. 
And the committee chairman said, How do you feel about sugar subsidies? 
Eddie Murphy, being Eddie Murphy and a new Congressman said, Well, Mr. 
Chairman, how should I feel about sugar subsidies? And the chairman 
said, It doesn't matter, because if you support sugar subsidies, we're 
going to get you money from the confectioners and the bakers. And if 
you oppose sugar subsidies, we're going to get your money from the cane 
growers and the beet growers.
  There are folks on every side of the issue in this town. So whenever 
there's an issue that's a contentious issue, you can call in one side, 
you can call in the other, and you can hear both sides of the argument. 
Folks who are experts, folks who have been working on these issues for 
decade after decade after decade. Well, when the Federal tax bill for 
America's businesses is $10 billion, it doesn't take much of an 
investment in lobbying for special exemptions in the Tax Code to make 
that happen.
  Now let me go back and look at corporate income taxes over time. I'm 
in the camp that tells you, corporations don't pay taxes, Mr. Speaker. 
Corporations do not pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes. I'm from Atlanta. 
If you add a tax on the Coca-Cola Company, what do you think is going 
to happen? They're going to raise the price of Coca-Cola. Right? That's 
what happens every single time that--we already have a competitive 
market. Coke and Pepsi are competing in a cutthroat beverage market out 
there today. They're already suppressing their prices as much as they 
can. There is only one taxpayer in America, and it is the American 
consumer. When we tax businesses, we just make the businesses the tax 
collector, and they raise their prices. I end up paying the tax when I 
buy the goods. They collect those taxes, and pass them on.
  But according to our friends at Citizens for Tax Justice--and you are 
not going to hear me quoting Citizens for Tax Justice very often, Mr. 
Speaker, because we don't agree a lot. But they pay a lot of attention 
to how much money is being spent in this town to manipulate the Tax 
Code. They say $475 million is being spent to manipulate the Tax Code 
in this town. Now, folks, it's our fault. We created the Tax Code. I 
don't blame the IRS for the way the Tax Code works. Congress created 
the Tax Code. Congress tells the IRS what to do. So for businesses to 
spend $475 million, for individuals to pay folks to come and lobby for 
the United States Tax Code, that makes sense. Why do you rob banks? 
Because that's where the money is. Why do you lobby the Tax Code? 
Because that's where the money is--not in these appropriations bills 
that we're doing today, but in the Tax Code.
  Trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars in revenue, Mr. 
Speaker. And with the stroke of a pen, a loophole, an exception, 
exemption hidden somewhere in what is now 76,000 pages of code, you can 
save money for your client. You can get a break that your competitor 
doesn't get. And who ends up paying that bill? Every other American 
family. And if we don't pay that bill today, we end up borrowing that 
money, and our kids pay the bill, and our grandkids pay the bill for 
years and years and years to come.
  This isn't rocket science, Mr. Speaker. This is Economics 101. I do 
it when I go to speak to high school classes. I say, you know, I've got 
a job in my congressional office. You're going to get to serve your 
neighbors. You're going to get to serve your country. It is going to be 
a wonderful thing. And I pay $10 an hour. Who wants to come? All the 
hands go up around the room. Then I say, But I'm going to have to put a 
tax on that because we have bills to pay in this country. So I am going 
to put a $9 an hour tax on that, but you will still be able to take 
home that last dollar. Who wants to come work 80 hours a week for me 
for $1 an hour? And all the hands go down, Mr. Speaker. That's 
economics 101. There is a sweet spot here. They called it the Laffer 
curve in the 1980s. There's a sweet spot where you can raise tax rates 
and continue to raise income for the government--tax receipts, and if 
you exceed that rate, you begin to shrink tax receipts for the 
government.
  I remember a story, Mr. Speaker, this was over on the Senate side, a 
Senator from Washington State who ran

[[Page 21276]]

the Finance Committee at the time. And the question was, What would 
happen if we raised taxes to 100 percent on all Americans who make over 
$250,000 a year? What would happen? What would happen if we raised 
taxes on all Americans making over $250,000 a year to 100 percent? 
Well, he asked that question to the tax scoring committee, and folks 
got excited, sent back a good message, and said, Oh, golly, if we did 
that, we'd raise this big pot of money to help pay Federal bills. Big 
pot of money.
  Well, come on, Mr. Speaker, you tell me, what would happen if we 
raised taxes on you to 100 percent? Well, I tell you, you would quit 
coming to work. You have got a heart for service. But you also have 
bills to pay. Folks would adjust their behavior. No one would make over 
$250,000 a year anymore.
  The power to tax is the power to destroy. When you tax at 100 
percent, you destroy 100 percent of all that economic production. You 
know what's sad, as I look at this Economics 101 chart, Mr. Speaker? 
It's that it's America that has this disastrous, destructive, 
detrimental Tax Code. The former Soviet Bloc countries, Mr. Speaker, 
they have flat taxes. They have consumption taxes. They started with a 
blank slate after the fall of the Soviet Union, and they created tax 
codes that work. They rejected the communist system and said, What if 
we have a flat tax on everything that's easy to pay?
  Mr. Speaker, I know we have to have taxes in this country, and I 
don't mind paying them. I don't mind paying them. I love the freedom 
that we have in this country, and I know freedom isn't free. What I 
don't like, Mr. Speaker, is having to pay someone to help me pay my 
taxes--I'm a smart guy--to have to pay someone to help me pay my taxes.
  If we're going to collect taxes from folks, it ought to be easy, and 
the more complicated we make it, the less revenue we collect. And who 
has proven that point? The former Soviet Bloc countries. That's where 
we look for economic vibrance today, Mr. Speaker. That's where we look 
for Tax Code success today. Country after country after country threw 
out their old code, adopted a flat consumption tax, a flat income tax, 
made it easy to pay, easy to comply with, and raised the revenues to 
their national treasury. We could do that very same thing. There's a 
sweet spot, and we are not in it.
  Mr. Speaker, we sometimes get swept up in partisanship here in the 
House. I know you avoid it. I try to avoid it. But sometimes it 
happens. But when it comes to the issue of reforming the Tax Code, it's 
not a partisan issue. I'll point to this quote from President Barack 
Obama in a speech he was making on international tax policy reform. He 
says, Our Tax Code is full of corporate loopholes that make it 
perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share. Now his 
take on it is a little different from mine.
  You know, the U.S. Tax Code defines what folks have to do. I almost 
think it's your patriotic duty to pay as little tax as you legally can. 
Don't send your extra money up here. Whoever is encouraging you to do 
that, don't do it. Keep as much of your own money as you can because I 
promise you, you're going to spend it better than I will.

                              {time}  1450

  It's not from lack of trying. It's not from lack of trying. Keep your 
own money in your pocket; send as little as you legally can.
  But, yes, the Tax Code has been warped over time to make it very 
difficult to tell what is someone's fair share. What is their fair 
share?
  Now, the top 10 percent of all income earners in this country, Mr. 
Speaker, pay 60 percent of all of the income taxes. The top 10 percent 
pay 60 percent of all the income taxes. The top 50 percent pay 100 
percent of all the income taxes. About half of America today pays no 
income taxes whatsoever. In fact, a growing amount of American families 
are actually receiving money from the Tax Code instead of paying money 
into the Tax Code. That's not what the Tax Code is for.
  But on both sides of the aisle, we agree that this Tax Code isn't 
working. The President thinks it isn't working because it allows folks 
to pay nothing, and that's not fair. I'd tell you it's not working 
because it allows one company to pay one amount and its neighbor 
company to have to pay twice that amount, and that's not fair. Equity 
is what's fair. And I'll tell you, Tax Code for corporations, it 
shouldn't go from the 30s down to the 20s. It shouldn't go from the 30s 
down to the teens. It should go from the 30s down to zero, Mr. Speaker, 
to zero because businesses don't pay taxes. Their consumers pay taxes.
  I pay taxes when I shop at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's not paying the tax. 
They're raising the price on the good, and I'm paying the tax and 
you're paying the tax and every American family that shops there is 
paying the tax.
  So how do we get to something that defines our fair share? Well, Mr. 
Speaker, that brings me to the heart of the FairTax. I don't like the 
divisive games that are being played in America today, Mr. Speaker. I 
don't know why it is that what we see in the media and what we 
sometimes hear from the podiums is language designed to divide America. 
I can't think of a single strength of this country, I can't think of a 
single trait that makes this country great that is enhanced by dividing 
America. That's why we always talk about the American Dream, Mr. 
Speaker, something that unites us, something that brings all of our 
disparate views and hopes and dreams together into one understanding of 
what makes this country different from any other country on the planet.
  Mr. Speaker, my idea of fair when I sit down with a blank sheet of 
paper to try to design a brand new Tax Code for this country, fair 
doesn't mean that we're going to try to ensure equal outcomes for every 
American. Fair means we're going to start with a level playing field 
for every American.
  Have you ever been in a community, Mr. Speaker, and you see somebody 
driving a brand-new Porsche and you wonder if they're paying their fair 
share? Have you ever been walking past a clothing store, you and I 
might be on our way down to the Goodwill or Salvation Army or T.J.Maxx 
or to Marshall's and you see somebody walking into Brooks Brothers and 
you wonder if they're paying their fair share?
  You know, I remember growing up, I had a good friend who lived next 
door. The family had everything--boats, lake houses, beach houses, 
brand-new cars, fancy clothes. And when it came time to apply for 
college aid, we both filled out our applications. I didn't get a penny 
in Federal financial aid because I got a note back that said: Dear Sir, 
Your family saved too much.
  Your family saved too much.
  My buddy next door--fancy cars, fancy houses, fancy clothes, he got 
back a note that said: Congratulations, you qualify for a subsidized 
college education.
  You qualify for a subsidized college education.
  Why? Because in all of these flush years that your family has had, 
you spent it all. So now in your time of need, you have nothing and you 
qualify for a bonus.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not anything that makes this country great. What 
makes this country great is people being able to make their own choices 
about how they're going to live their life and the Federal Government 
doesn't bail them out.
  Mr. Speaker, you and I weren't here when the bailouts came down the 
pipe, but I guarantee you that we would've both voted ``no.'' We would 
have both voted ``no'' for every penny of bailout money that came down 
the pipe because the American Government is not supposed to be about 
bailing out anybody. The America Government is supposed to be about 
protecting the freedom of the American people. And that includes, Mr. 
Speaker, freedom to fail. Freedom to fail.
  You get to make the choices you want to make about your life, but you 
also have to bear the consequences. If you want to take great risks, if 
you have great success, you benefit from that. And if you have great 
failure, you pay the price for that. We cannot insulate people, Mr. 
Speaker, from the consequences of their actions. But over and over 
again, that's what the Tax Code does.

[[Page 21277]]

  Oh, if you lose money, we want to protect you. If you make money, we 
want to punish you. I don't get that. I don't understand that. Fairness 
for me is a level playing field for opportunity, not a level playing 
field for outcomes.
  Mr. Speaker, you know we talk every day in this Chamber about jobs; 
and by talk, we act every day to promote an environment in this Nation 
that grows jobs.
  What do you think, Mr. Speaker, the American Tax Code does when a 
multinational corporation is trying to decide where it's going to put 
its next plant? What do you think it does? Because I can tell you, Mr. 
Speaker, with absolute certainty that America has the highest corporate 
tax rate of any nation on the planet. The number one highest.
  So you're a business person, Mr. Speaker. Where do you want to 
locate? Do you want to locate in a country that has ended all of the 
loopholes, that has restored a fairness to the marketplace for a level 
playing field, that allows our free enterprise system to work? Or do 
you want to locate your business in the country that has the single 
highest corporate tax rate in the world? Those are easy decisions, Mr. 
Speaker, and companies are making them every day.
  I talked to a CEO in my district about 6 months ago. He said, Rob, 
I'm going to be leaving. He said, The government has made it hard to 
pack up and leave. It's going to take me about 2 years, but I'm taking 
every job that's in this district and I'm moving them to Switzerland 
because it's just not worth doing business in America any more.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the hardest working workforce on the planet. We 
have the best education and transportation infrastructure on the 
planet. We have the finest education system on the planet. Nobody, 
nobody gives you more bang for your buck than the American worker, and 
yet people are deciding to take those jobs overseas. Why? It's not the 
American workers' fault, Mr. Speaker. It's our fault as we have crafted 
a Tax Code that doesn't work, as we have crafted a regulatory structure 
that doesn't work. But the good news is--and it's good news, Mr. 
Speaker--that there's nothing wrong with America that this body can't 
fix. Because I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, there's nothing wrong with 
America that this body didn't cause.
  Government is not the solution to our problems, and many times 
government is the creator of our problems. I do not want this body, no 
matter how august, I do not want my 435 colleagues, no matter how well-
studied and well-intended, to decide for me how my life should be led. 
That's never been what America was about. What America is about is 
making your own decisions for yourself, making your own decisions for 
your family, and knowing with absolute certainty, Mr. Speaker, absolute 
certainty, that by the sweat of your brow, by the power of your ideas, 
by the commitment that you make, you can make your tomorrow better than 
your today.
  I'll tell you, that's the American Dream, Mr. Speaker. It's not about 
how much money you have in your pocket. It's not about what kind of 
house you live in or what kind of car you drive. It's about that you 
can decide today that you're going to take actions for yourself and for 
your family and you're going to make tomorrow better.
  Hope, Mr. Speaker. Hope is a priceless commodity. A priceless 
commodity. And I fear we're not growing hope in this country, Mr. 
Speaker, like we used to. I fear we are extinguishing the candle of 
hope in this country. And not out of malice, Mr. Speaker. That's what 
makes it so insidious. It's not out of malice. It's out of folks who 
believe in their heart deep down inside that they're passing these 
policies because they want to make America better.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, America was better when Americans were running America. 
The whole idea of a Republic isn't that we get to be king of this land 
collectively. Our job is simple. It is to protect the freedom of 
individuals back home so that individuals back home can make the 
decisions that work best for them.
  I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I come from the great State of 
Georgia. We're a little conservative in our part of the world and proud 
of it. If anyone is looking for a good conservative part of the world 
to be a part of, I invite you to come down. We've got some good real 
estate prices and a good job market. Come on down and be a part of what 
we have, Mr. Speaker.
  But I read a story about my friends in California. Now, I enjoy 
visiting California. I don't want to move there. But it was a story 
about the Teamsters unionizing marijuana growers in California because 
medicinal marijuana is a big business out there in California these 
days. And so they unionized the marijuana growers. So if you work hard, 
apply yourself and join the union, you can be a junior marijuana grower 
at $25 an hour I'm told. And if you really work hard and really apply 
yourself, you can exceed where you start and become a senior marijuana 
grower and get close to $35 an hour. That's what I'm told.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that's wonderful for those folks in California. 
We're not bringing unionized marijuana-growing to the great State of 
Georgia. I'm not trying to stop the folks in California from doing what 
they want to do, but it's not going to come to our great State of 
Georgia. And that's what makes this country great. We can choose for 
ourselves, as individuals, as families, as communities, and as States 
how it is that we want to live our life--but not with the United States 
Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, the Tax Code manipulates every facet of your life--every 
facet of your life. If you're going to buy a green car, we're going to 
pay you money. If you buy a car that burns too much gasoline, we're 
going to charge you a fuel premium. If you receive your income from 
dividends, we're going to give you a tax break. If you receive your 
income from working hard on the line every day, you're going to pay 
full freight. If you've had a great year this year, even if you hadn't 
made another penny in the rest of your life, we're going to tax you 
like you're rich. If you make a little bit this year, even though 
you've made millions every other year for the rest of your life, we're 
going to tax you like you're poor.
  Mr. Speaker, we manipulate behavior in line item after line item 
after line item in the United States Code; and, candidly, folks on both 
sides of the aisle defend it. They defend it as if we're really smart 
here. And I'll tell you, folks here work hard. I'm not down on 
Congress. Folks here in Congress work hard. But they don't know 
everything, nor can they, nor should they be burdened with that 
responsibility. But that's what happens in the Tax Code: let me pass 
this tax incentive, because if only we encourage this behavior, all of 
America will be happier. And it's easy to hide things in the Tax Code. 
Again, it's 75,000 pages.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage you to take a look at H.R. 25, again, the 
single most widely cosponsored piece of fundamental tax reform 
legislation in either the House or the Senate. And, in fact, it's the 
most widely cosponsored piece of tax reform legislation in both 
Chambers. It ends every loophole.
  Mr. Speaker, you hear folks every day down here on the House floor: I 
want you to end the loopholes for rich people; I want you to end the 
loopholes for oil companies; I want you to end the loopholes for 
Solyndra and the solar companies; I want you to end loophole, loophole, 
loophole, loophole. Mr. Speaker, there's one bill in the House that 
does it all, and its H.R. 25. No loopholes, no exemptions. We all pay 
the same. And it lets our free enterprise system work, Mr. Speaker.
  We talk about creating jobs in this country, Mr. Speaker. We have to 
do that. But our Tax Code is destroying jobs. We have to create new 
jobs; but, Mr. Speaker, that's hard. Preserving the jobs we already 
have has to be a part of that. And yet we run jobs overseas each and 
every day in large part because of our Tax Code.
  More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the FairTax is revenue neutral. So 
many folks think about a conservative Republican like me liking every 
tax cut

[[Page 21278]]

he can get his hands on. I do. I'm a big proponent of leaving more 
money in individuals' pockets. I will always believe the American 
family will spend their own money better than we will spend it on their 
behalf in Washington. Always. But, Mr. Speaker, there are bills to pay 
in Washington. We do need to support our troops, we do need to defend 
our homeland, and we do need to protect our border. And so the FairTax 
brings in every penny of revenue that we bring in today. It's revenue 
neutral.
  In fact, given the bill that's in front of the Senate right now on 
payroll taxes, we're actually going to bring in more revenue with the 
FairTax than we bring in with the current system, but it's designed to 
be revenue neutral because I know that we must pay taxes. But we 
mustn't make it hard to do. That's a choice we've made in this body, 
and it's the wrong one.
  Mr. Speaker, take a look at H.R. 25, the FairTax. You can find out 
all about it at www.fairtax.org, all the information, all the studies. 
We started with a blank sheet of paper, we came up with a plan that 
starts everyone on a level playing field. And so far, Mr. Speaker, 
we've attracted enough cosponsors on both sides of the Hill to make it 
the single most popular fundamental tax reform bill in Congress.
  I thank you for giving me this time this afternoon to talk about it, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________