Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, yesterday and today in the full Judiciary Committee we have been taking up a bill called, by most people, the hate crimes act. It sounds like something that everybody would be for. You know, who favors hate? Nobody. Perhaps the only kind of hate we should be in favor of is the hatred with which we hate hate. But that's not what it's about. It is about creating new law, new crimes that are duplicates of what's in every State in the Union. Now, there are 45 States that already have hate crimes bills, but even there, most are unnecessary. The case that you often hear that is a reason we need hate crimes is the James Byrd case, where this poor gentleman, African-American, was dragged to death. Now, I would be in favor of allowing the victim's family to pick the terrain and the manner of dragging the defendants once they are convicted, but that's not allowed. The death penalty amendment was even voted down. So there's no enhancements, nothing that would affect the poster cases that are constantly raised as a reason to have the hate crime laws. And, in fact, when we hear over and over there's these epidemics of hate crimes that we have to stop, actually, there were nearly a million assaults in America in 2007; 242 assaults included some kind of bodily injury in which there was some motive attributed to bias or hatred because of a selected group, 242. Again, there was a killing of a poor young man named Nicholas West, killed because he was a homosexual. His perpetrators were not charged under a hate crimes law, they were charged under a capital murder law for kidnapping. And they have already got the death penalty, just like the worst two perpetrators in James Byrd's situation. So what is this about? Well, perhaps it's about trying to create a special class of protected people who maybe shouldn't have protection. One of the last amendments we made today was going to--at least in this definition the term ``sexual orientation'' is included. We kept trying to confine it to things that were not just an aberration, and even the amendment to at least exclude pedophiles from the protected class was voted down on a strict party line. Every Democrat there voted to protect pedophiles and every Republican voted to exclude them, at least, from the definition of sexual orientation. We were told, well, there is a definition in one of the other laws about sexual orientation, and it confined it to heterosexuality and homosexuality. It's not in this law. It's not there. There is no reference to another law. So as a former appellate judge I would be left in reviewing the law to say well, what is the plain meaning? You can consider other definitions. Well, some judge will do the right thing that a judge is supposed to do and say, hmm, sexual orientation, it means what it says. It's however you are oriented sexually. If that's towards child--and the diagnostics statistics manual has about 30 different types of sexual orientation. So that includes voyeurism, it includes the pedophilia, it includes things like exhibitionism. It includes necrophilia for corpses and all these horrible things. But even under this law, since exhibitionists are not excluded--and I have had women tell me they have had people flash themselves, men flash themselves, and they immediately reacted and hit them with a purse. Under that scenario, under this law, the exhibitionist committed a misdemeanor and the woman that hit him with her purse committed a new Federal felony under the hate crimes law. That is absurd. We don't need this law. There is no reason for it. We even tried to include in here specifically the kinds of churches that were invaded and attacked for supporting the California marriage amendment, and that was voted down on a straight party line. There should be no special classes. And the other thing here that would silence Christian ministers and eventually rabbis or imams from quoting the Bible, the Tanach or Koran where it condemns homosexuality, because under this bill if a minister, a rabbi, imam quotes from those scriptures and says homosexuality is an aberration--or whatever language they use, that it is wrong, it hurts society--and some nut hears them and goes out, commits a crime of violence, then under 18 U.S.C. (2)(a) they could be arrested, charged as a principal. This was a bad bill, and it was a bad day for the law.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I would yield my minute to my friend from Louisiana.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, where but Washington would there be such an atmosphere of arrogance that when in the nineties there was a drop in the crime rate we would start lauding ourselves and saying we did that here in Washington? Let me tell you who did that. I know in Texas they raised taxes. They built more prisons. They elected judges like me. We started having longer sentences, juries worked longer and harder, law enforcement worked longer and harder through the nineties. They brought more people to justice. There were more trials. People went from serving just a month on a year in many cases to serving one-third, one-half or more of their sentences before they were paroled, and many much longer than that. We were keeping people longer. There was a 1,000 case backlog in my one district court, but because of the hard work of hundreds of people, that got cut by 80 percent, even though the number of cases rose each year. It wasn't Washington that got that accomplished. That is why the report from the GAO says a 1.3 percent decline in overall crime rate could be attributed to the COPS grants. And when you consider what my friend Mr. King pointed out, it took 166,000 Federal dollars to get one policeman? Man, we would be better off if we had a program that said, you know, for every dollar of local taxes or State taxes that are raised to go in law enforcement, we will cut the Federal taxes, because I can promise you the States and the local governments can do a whole lot more efficient job than hiring law enforcement for $166,000 apiece. That is where the difference was made. It wasn't made in Washington. It was made by the hard-working law enforcement officers and court officials back in the States and local governments.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, to say that we may want to pat ourselves on the back sitting behind the bench, I didn't ask for the words to be taken down. I don't believe they quite violate the rule. But I can tell you what sitting behind the bench did for those years. It gave me a great vantage point to see what was doing good and what wasn't. Now, I never kept a jury past 3 a.m., so I can't say I kept anybody all night. But I can tell you that the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the law enforcement people, the parole boards, the confinement officials, the taxpayers that kept coming up with more and more money, they did an incredible job. They worked incredibly hard. They didn't get paid enough. And I know the gentleman has referred to 170 or so law enforcement in my district that were added. And I really do need to get to the background information and figure out exactly where all those people were and for whom the Federal Government is taking credit for hiring. But, you know, obviously the local governments had to take over that share, and so it was an incentive to start hiring more people. But the audit indicates that, looking at only 3 percent of the COPS grants, Federal auditors have alleged $277 million in misspent funds. The studies have shown that spending on the COPS program has not led to an increase in the overall spending by local law enforcement, so it hasn't increased law enforcement spending. That's what the studies show. So if the overall spending on law enforcement programs, even with the additional Federal increase, has not increased law enforcement spending, then it's pretty clear that the money spent here did not do the trick of reducing crime. It came from lots of other sources. And I come back to my original point. There is nobody that does a more efficient job than the local governments and the State governments in addressing these problems, because once that money comes through Washington, it is incredible the slice that this place takes out of the money before they send it back, whether it's education, whether it's law enforcement, whatever it is. And if we could come to a bipartisan agreement that would say, for every dollar you raise local and State taxes, we're going to reduce your Federal taxes, I think we could then hit that increase in law enforcement that obviously both sides want to see. It's just that that would be far more efficient. It would get to the people back in the State and localities who are really doing the job and from which my vantage on the bench allowed me to see, not pat myself on the back, but to see who was doing the job, and not bureaucrats up here in Washington talking a good game. That's where the difference is made and that's where we can help.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Utah yielding in such an amazing form. I do appreciate my friend from Wisconsin's sensitivity over cranes. And she is right; they are a thing of beauty. We have seen whooping cranes in Texas. I am glad they are protected; they are beautiful. We have heard President Obama say recently that we are going to have to make some tough choices, that we are going to have to scour through our appropriations, our authorizations, our budgets and cut things that are not really essential. And it is my understanding that of the 15 crane species here, 13 are not in the United States. Currently, it is clear we are borrowing a great deal of our money that we use as we appropriate from this floor from the Chinese. As I understand it, many of these crane species are not located in the United States, but are located in Asia. What an incredible irony, that we could borrow money from the Chinese for which we will owe principal and interest to the Chinese, and then potentially turn around and pay money to help habitats in China. The irony is astounding. I know all of us have people in our districts who are struggling to maintain their own habitat. As we make tough decisions in this body, this ought to be one that is not that tough: The American people keeping their habitat or cranes in a foreign country keeping their habitat. I think we ought to vote for Americans to keep their habitat. We have got to make some tough choices. It is time to quit borrowing money from China. It's time to quit printing additional money. It's time for some responsibility on this floor. We owe that to future generations not to put them in debt to pay foreign countries to create habitats for cranes. With that I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOHMERT. Again I appreciate the sensitivities with regard to rare cats and dogs around the world. With regard to the previous votes on this bill in the House, to be specific, 227 Democrats voted ``aye,'' 67 Republicans voted ``aye,'' which also was about the same numbers, similar numbers, that voted for the bailout back in September, which was also a huge mistake. There was one Democrat that voted ``no'' and 118 Republicans that voted ``no.'' But we are even in different times now. We are still borrowing money from the Chinese. And, once again, the irony here is incredible. We are going to borrow more money from the Chinese to possibly give them money back to create habitats for wild dogs and cats that are rare. There is no assurance that if we did that we wouldn't end up with moo goo dog pan or moo goo cat pan. There is no way to assure that money will not be wasted when it's sent to foreign countries. One other thing, Iberian lynx, that cat would be eligible, and he is only found in Spain and Portugal. We would be appropriating $25 million over 5 years in order to send some money to the very country that has been making ridiculous accusations about the United States here in recent days. Oh, good, accuse us of ridiculous crimes, and then we will send you money for your dogs and cats. At some point we have got to stand up and be more responsible with the money we are borrowing that we are pledging our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will pay back. This is not the time to be passing this bill. I know there were 294 votes, 67 Republicans last time, but I am hoping that because American habitats are again threatened for individual people in America, it's time to quit spending money for habitats in foreign countries for animals.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I have to confess that it's a little tough to be here on the floor and be accused of wanting to keep money from the hardworking Americans, as Republicans, when I have had a bill I have been begging to be allowed to come to the floor that gives a tax holiday to every hardworking American in the country--to everybody. Even those who don't make enough to pay income tax would get a FICA holiday. So, to be lectured about our not wanting hardworking Americans to have a break, give me a break. The bill is there. Let it come to the floor. I'm told by people all over the Hill and all over America: Please, see if you can't get the Democratic leadership to give us this holiday. Then we have a marriage penalty that is exacerbated in this budget, made even worse. Then who do you think is going to pay for this extra energy tax? It'll be passed on, and the people who earn the least will get hurt the most. The real secret about this budget, Madam Speaker, should not be lost in this one act. Secretary of State Clinton was sent to beg the Chinese to keep loaning us money. What does that say for our future? We're quickly approaching the irreversible in this spending. It has to stop.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Iowa yielding, and I appreciate his discussions here on the floor tonight. And if I may seek indulgence in the last 5 minutes, I'm hoping to pay tribute to one of my constituents that won a--not won, but earned a Silver Star, if I might be allowed to do that at the end of the hour. But what had concerned me, you know, we all have these meetings and hearings and it goes on all day long and often, around 11, 12, midnight, I sit down and I can catch up on some news. I can catch up on replays, sometimes on C-SPAN. But anyway, C-SPAN does help because, you know, we can see things from our office that we weren't able to get to the floor because of other things going on. But I had seen on C-SPAN debate with the chairman with whom my friend from Iowa was engaging earlier, and I had seen him engaging with my friend from Texas, Mr. Culberson. And I became very disturbed. As we know, there are rules of decorum here on the floor that we're not to insult another Member of Congress, that we're not to insult a Senator or the President, and so I became intrigued and very concerned as I heard Chairman Frank making statements. I've gotten the Record since then. The comment was made about my friend Mr. Culberson by Chairman Barney Frank. ``I've never seen people, Mr. Chairman, so attached to something they hate. This is presumably a psychological disorder which I'm not equipped to diagnose.'' Well, that caught my attention. He's accusing Mr. Culberson of having a psychological disorder, and so it seemed--well, in Shakespearean words, ``Me thinks he doth protest too much.'' So I began to listen more. He went on and continued speaking, and this is a quote from Chairman Barney Frank. ``Speaking about being undone, my Republican colleagues are being undone by the loss of their whipping boy.'' So I'm wondering this is a gentleman who is getting very sensitive and who is lashing out with what seemed to be inappropriate, perhaps not skirting over the rule, but there were other comments that certainly seemed inappropriate and unnecessary. Chairman Barney Frank said, ``The bill under consideration is 5\1/2\ pages. I believe even the gentleman from Texas could have read it by now, and if the gentleman from Texas had not been able to read this 5\1/2\-page bill, I will talk long. Even if you read it slow, you'll get it done.'' He went on and said, ``My colleagues on the other side are kind of like kids who have a toy bear or a blanket, and this security blanket means a lot to them. Their security blanket is being able to complain about something that happened before the break. This bill undoes what happened before the break and makes it a nullity. They at some point, Mr. Chairman, have to outgrow the security blanket.'' So he's calling people on this side of the aisle little children. Of course the debate that was going on was the concern from our side that, first of all, we had been promised by our new President and by the Speaker, and we'd even passed a bill in here that said we had to have 48 hours to review any bill that they rushed in here to the floor. We had to have that chance. Yet they came in and immediately filed a bill. I think it went up on the Internet at around 11:00 or 12:00, and at 9:00 or 10:00 the next morning, we were having a debate on it and a vote on it that day. There was no 24 hours, but we were told we had to do that. It was critical. It was a crisis. People were losing their jobs every minute that we didn't vote on it and pass it. So they ran roughshod. They would not allow any Member of this body the time to read the bill. They ran roughshod over everybody. Nobody had a chance to read it. Then to come in and accuse people on this side of the aisle, who were concerned about that, of being kids wanting a security blanket, I'll tell you: It is a security blanket to me that we could be able to read bills before we cram them down the throats of Americans. So I'm hearing this on C-SPAN. Here is another comment by Chairman Frank: ``The gentleman from Texas has now had a chance to read the bill, and has a question for me about this bill.'' He goes on and says, ``He can have all the Special Orders he wants in order to beat that dead horse, because it is a dead horse. This bill that he does not want to debate the merits of, that he is probably prepared to vote against--that he didn't want to debate the merits of? That was uncalled for and was inappropriate. We were entirely prepared to try to debate the merits, but here again, it had to do with seeing a bill rushed through here without a chance for anybody to read it and then rushing in last week and saying, ``Here. Let's quickly vote on a 90 percent tax after the fact, ex post facto, a bill of attainder in all likelihood, due process issues, taking issues, equal protection issues, all kinds of questions about it. Rush that in as a fix. Then here they come, rushing right back in, saying, ``Well, we've got another fix. This will even be better,'' and we wonder why people would want to question it. Well, you know, is this 5\1/2\-page bill any better than the one you rushed through last week? There were concerns. Chairman Frank also went on and said, ``Apparently, there are two alternative strategies that the minority has in discussing this bill: One, discuss a bill that was passed 6 weeks ago; two, ignore the rules of the House and just talk whenever they feel like it. Neither one seems, to me, to advance debate.'' So I'm hearing these things coming from Chairman Frank. There was something amiss here. He went on to also say, ``This is a revolt against King George, in effect, and it is--King George Bush.'' That is really unnecessary, slamming the former President. Talk about a whipping boy. They made former President Bush quite the whipping boy at every chance. They still are. I mean, the Constitution makes very clear that Congress is the one that has to appropriate money and pass spending bills. After the Democrats took the majority in 2007 and 2008 and passed these enormous spending bills, which only Congress can do, they still want to blame the President who had no power to legislate. Chairman Frank also went on and said, ``I wish I didn't have to listen to some of these speeches, particularly the repetitive ones about the bill 6 weeks ago.'' He also said, ``But when Members complain about something that might happen that won't happen, it is because they are against what is happening but don't have the confidence that, if they said it, people would believe it.'' This was also a slam at the motives of the people who had proper concerns about the rush repeatedly to pass something so it looked to people across America that something was being done. As a former judge, when I hear people being that sensitive and lashing out at others, there is something here, so I had gone back and had pulled some quotes to see if, perhaps, this was the source of the sensitivity. On September 25, 2003, at the hearing on H.R. 2575, The Secondary Mortgage Market Enterprises, Mr. Frank said, ``There are people in the country who are prepared to lend money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at less interest rates than they might get elsewhere. I thank those people for doing that. I must tell them that I hope they are not doing that on the assumption that, if things go bad, I or my colleagues will bail them out. We will not.'' Also on page 4, ``I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure, so they are in no great danger.'' Also on page 4, this again is Mr. Frank. ``I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. We have a chance to improve regulation of two entities that I think are, on the whole, working well.'' Well, we know now they were not at all. In debate on the floor here on H.R. 1461, to reform regulation of Fannie and Freddie, October 26 of 2005--this is in the Congressional Record--Mr. Frank said, ``There are banks who complain that because Fannie and Freddie are perceived to have some backup from Congress--and let me say right now, if you are listening, if you are buying Fannie's or Freddie's paper because you think I am going to vote to bail you out, sell it and cash it in. I am not going to do that. I do not think there is a Federal guarantee.'' We know, apparently, he didn't mean what he said or he has changed his mind since then. On July 19 of 2008--and this is Air America's 7 Days quoting Chairman Frank--``It's really been a test of regulation . . . a conscious decision brought by Alan Greenspan, who is the arch de-regulator. Because in 1994, not coincidentally, the last time the Democrats had a congressional majority before this year, a bill was passed that was called the Homeowner Equity Protection Act, that said to the Federal Reserve, `Look, we now have loans being made by non-regulated entities, so please pass some rules. We give you the statutory authority to pass the rules to contain their activity and make it more responsible.' Alan Greenspan said, `Oh, no. That's interfering with the market. I can't do that.' He didn't do it; that's where the crisis came.'' Interesting place to blame. In any event, on September 10 of 2003, there is one other quote from Mr. Frank. ``The more people, in my judgment, who exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury''--and these are Mr. Frank's words--``which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios.'' That was from The Wall Street Journal on October 2, 2008, bringing back that quote from 2003. So, as I look back--and I was looking for the justification of why such an intellectual man as Mr. Frank would be lashing out, calling names, accusing people here on the floor of having psychological disorders--I began to get a picture, and it may have to do with what the gentleman from Iowa pointed out earlier about who ends up squealing. There was something there that did trigger, perhaps, more sensitivity than we might have thought necessary, but when you get to the bottom of it, there are quotes here that are a problem, that did help protect Fannie when they should have had some things done to shore them up and should have had a protection that prevented that from happening. So I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Again, I go back. There was no need to lash out at Mr. Culberson and at others, but the more you look back at the quotes over the last 5 years, even into the nineties, you begin to see, maybe, why there is such sensitivity on these issues. I appreciate my friend yielding. I yield back to him.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Iowa yielding. I have run across some quotes. I was at the home of some friends of mine in Dallas, and they had a number of fantastic quotes from our history, and I think what we've seen today as this budget, this terrible, terrible budget was passed, just one of the quotes from Thomas Jefferson, this brilliant man, was, ``the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.'' And that's exactly what we saw today with this budget. Liberty was yielding, the government taking more and more control of everything. Thomas Jefferson knew it. I mean, it's like Solomon said, There is nothing new under the sun. These things that people think are new and innovative, it is not new. It failed in the New Testament church, it failed the Pilgrims when half of them nearly starved the first winter. They came up with this grand idea, let's give everybody their own private property and make them responsible for producing on their own property--and they have access. It's theirs. They can borrow it, sell it, whatever. It's theirs. It was a great idea. And that carried over 150 years into the Constitution, this idea of private property and the government not trying to run everything. But what I would humbly submit, the way it appears to me and why we're seeing so much government intervention, the more it does, the more it feels like it has to do. But what we've seen like Madoff, things like Countrywide, some of the people there who shoved people into mortgages they couldn't afford, packaged them together and then sold them off without recourse, made their millions. You know, things like that, those are the things this Nation, this government of this Nation, are supposed to be looking for. We're supposed to make sure there is a level playing field. We're supposed to protect this Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We had some domestic enemies that were hurting people in this country. But what happens is when we get so caught up in trying to run everything, telling Detroit exactly what kinds of cars you have got to make, telling the business people this is what you have got to do, we're so busy telling people how to run their lives, how to run their businesses, that we lost what we are supposed to be doing. We're supposed to provide these people with a defense from the crooks from the domestic and foreign enemies. But oh, no. We're too busy telling them what they are supposed to do. I love what Abe Lincoln said. He said, ``We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other Nation.'' He concluded, ``though but we have forgotten God. Because if you know that there is an ultimate Universal source of right and wrong, then you care more about doing right and trying to help others do right.'' And that's what this government is supposed to be doing. We're supposed to be catching cheaters, dishonest people hurting America, and we lose that grip when we try to run everything. And I would also point out as you try to get your hands around this huge budget that increases the deficit--I mean, people--we got beat up in 2005 and 2006. My first years here, we were in the majority. We were beat up because we were spending too much money, and we were. But then turn around to 2007 and 2008, the Democrats have control of everything. They are not reigning in spending. It goes through the roof. And now it's gone even further. So if you want to know the bottom-line secret of what this budget is about, I would submit to you it can be found in one action: that was in this administration sending Secretary of State Clinton to China to beg them to loan us more money. That's what this budget does. It makes us beg China for more money.

Mr. GOHMERT. You know, many in this body think this Nation will go on forever. We know no nation will last forever. We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. But those rights are like any inheritance. You only get to have them if people are willing to fight and protect them, fighting government and then fight our enemies abroad. Well, in the summer of 2008, media from around the country released reports on an attack on an American military outpost base in the Kunar province of Afghanistan near the Pakistani border. Accounts say that 45 U.S. paratroopers and 25 Afghan soldiers were assaulted by up to 500 Taliban and al Qaeda fighters, bombarding our soldiers with rocket- propelled grenades and mortars. Nine U.S. soldiers were killed, 15 injured, and it was called the deadliest attack on American forces in Afghanistan since 2005. I am here today to honor these servicemembers for their incredible sacrifice and to especially recognize one in particular who I am so very proud and humbled to represent as his U.S. Congressman. Army Specialist Aaron David Davis, from Kilgore, Texas, was serving as an anti-armor gunner of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team and was sent in as reinforcement when insurgents assailed our soldiers on July 13, 2008. In the rural town of Wanat, Afghanistan, Specialist Davis and his men were bombarded by enemy fire from all sides as insurgents took over homes and mosques in their attempts to seize the newly established American base there. Specialist Davis and his fellow soldiers were vastly outnumbered, but they continued to courageously fight. Specialist Davis saw many of his fellow soldiers killed in the midst of that chaotic combat and was wounded himself; yet he was not deterred from fiercely protecting the base and his friends. An American military helicopter finally came to the rescue, but even after he was told to get on the helicopter that would surely be his ticket to safety, a wounded and hurting Davis was more concerned with the protection of others. With his own life in peril, he stayed and continued to fight. Among his heroic actions, Specialist Davis crawled to the frontline to check on a fellow soldier, and then he helped save three fellow soldiers, putting them on gurneys and helping get them airlifted out of the ongoing battle. While fighting to protect these men, Davis was again wounded, receiving shrapnel in his left hand, left arm, and behind his right eye. He became so wounded he finally had to be lifted away from the fight himself. There is so much more to the story, and I wish there were more time to elaborate on this young man's incredible selflessness. Aaron Davis spend many weeks recovering from his wounds at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and he is now back on active duty at Fort Sam Houston, continuing to boldly serve his country while still further rehabilitating. He was recently awarded the Purple Heart for the wounds he suffered, as well as the Silver Star, the third highest military decoration that can be awarded to a member of any branch of the United States Armed Forces, for his incredible courage and unwavering commitment to his country and his fellow soldiers. Specialist Aaron Davis deserves our thanks for his bold bravery and selfless sacrifice. It is the courage and commitment of Aaron Davis and his fellow soldiers and those like them that allows us to continue to enjoy our freedom as U.S. citizens. We are manifestly proud and permanently grateful. To Specialist Aaron Davis, may God bless Aaron Davis and he and all he has done for this Nation.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, when she said I'm yielding 10 minutes to my friend from Texas, the Speaker took that to mean I'm reserving my time? Okay. Thank you. The gentlewoman from New York reserved her time and signaled that the gentleman from Texas should yield his time.

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh, I see. So when she said I yield my friend from Texas 10 minutes, that meant she was reserving her time? All right. Thank you for the clarification. I did want to take up a couple of things that were mentioned. First of all, my friend across the aisle had indicated that opponents had wanted to cut benefits to the middle class and reward the wealthiest few and even held up a chart showing the kind of deficits that were run up in 2007 and 2008. And this is the same kind of mantra we've been hearing and actually heard that in 2005 and 2006. And the fact is there was too much money being spent after President Bush took office. When Republicans had the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, too much money was being spent, and that's why before the Democrats took office or took the majority, there was a $160 billion deficit that was run up. It was too much money. It was too much deficit. And that's why the American public said: Enough. We're going to put the Democrats in charge. We don't want another $160 billion deficit. And so what did we get in 2007 and 2008? We got the numbers that the jobs were falling, we got a problem economy, and the runaway spending went wilder than ever. Now, just in 2 months--and I was objecting back then, I'm objecting louder now--because now they're going to increase that 10 times teams. We spent nearly $800 billion on a spendulus bill in January, February. Then we had another--they got the other $350 billion of the $700 billion from last year. Going nuts spending money--$1 trillion dollars? That would pay for an entire year of every individual taxpayer getting back every dime they have. So when we hear that this party--these people on this side of the aisle--want to make benefits to the wealthiest, you can look at the bill I filed. It was for a tax holiday to let those who were paying taxes get their money back. That's a solution. That gets the economy going. This cap-and-tax on energy, that is going to penalize the people that are just struggling to pay their gasoline bill. And then to hammer the deductions for charities and mortgages, that also hammers the people in the middle class trying to get by. And it brings home the point that this majority is about the GRE--government running everything.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Chairman, parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. GOHMERT. I have a bill that I filed the last Congress, I'm filing again, that would have no increases. A level spending bill. No automatic increases. And they're running that up like crazy. The Federal Government has been too busy trying to run everybody else's business, telling Detroit, telling Wall Street, telling the lenders, the banks what to do, that they forgot that their job was to provide a defense against enemies foreign and domestic, like Madoff, the cheaters. We should have been after them. That's the job of this government--not telling everybody how to run their business.

Mr. GOHMERT. We have been talking about the time. When I came in, I understood the gentlelady across the aisle had yielded 10 minutes of her time to Mr. Brady. Was there a different understanding from the Chair?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend for yielding. He knows about scoring points--going back to school--but this is outrageous. Here, the economy is hurting. And, as my friend so eloquently put it, the government doesn't do things better than business. Business always does a better job than government. Yet, here we are. We are piling on. I don't know if most people are aware, but virtually every week we are putting more of our energy resources off limits. So we are going to run up the price of energy as we approach the summer--and the prices are already going up on their own. And then you have got this ridiculous spending that's going crazy. Begging the Chinese to keep loaning us money. We're going to print money. Inflation is going to hit it. On top of that, we're going to really hammer free enterprise by saying, in effect--you guys wouldn't know this, but my elementary school teachers, who I think were all Democrats, were liars. Because they told me growing up in school that you cannot have a free society, a Democratic country, if you don't have a secret ballot. That's what they told me. And I believed them. I still believe them. Yet, here is this bill, they call it card check, but it's the anti- secret ballot initiative by the Democratic leaders. Obviously, it's being pushed by the people they owe a great deal to. But Fox News had a story on about the Dana Corporation Auto Parts in Albion, Indiana, and they said that the card check process has nearly torn the 50-person plant apart after harassment and intimidation from the United Auto Workers Union forced them to a secret ballot vote. The union organizer, they said, came to the plant 2 years ago, asking employees to join the UAW because the company had signed a neutrality agreement with the union. The meeting didn't go well. One of the people interviewed, Larry Guest, said, ``He was using real rough language--cursing. It didn't go over well with the women at all. There were a couple that just got up and left. So employees said the union representatives approached them in the break room, at the plant doors, and even followed them to their cars and just harassed them and even followed them home--and the employees verified this--and they said, ``We're in a little town. We're in a plant of 50 some people. The last thing you need is to have a union come to your door saying: I want your name.'' But that's all it took under the card check process. They didn't get a secret ballot. All they needed was their name. So if it meant following them home, following them to their car, going to their kids' baseball games, whatever it took until they finally got them to sign just to get them off their backs. As one employee said, Jamie Oliver, ``When they approach you every day, every day, every day, after a while it's like `Okay. Fine. I'll sign the card.' '' The UAW collected the necessary signatures but plant employees appealed to the NLRB--the employees appealed. Then they finally got it overturned. The card check didn't make their life better, it made it more miserable. So here you have got companies struggling to stay afloat. Now I have had private businesses in my district say: I'm barely staying afloat. If this card check bill passes, I'm going to have to let everybody go. I'm too old to keep putting up with it. I've heard this from a number of people. We're going to let them go. And the card check will put a bunch more people out of business. Here, at a time when the economy is already struggling, and I think my friend is so right--my friend from Utah nailed it--the American people are what makes this country great. I was visiting with some students here from the Big Twelve. We have A&M, Baylor. They're still here, but the House rules say you can't acknowledge people in the gallery, so I won't. But we have some from Missouri, from Texas Tech. From around the Big Twelve. They get it. They know that the American people are the real strength of this country. And for the government to try to cram this stuff down on them and say, We do it better, is really outrageous. So I appreciate all of my friends here today making that point to the American people.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, there are some good provisions in this bill. There have been hearings on 70 out of 170 provisions in the House and this Congress. But our esteemed and fine chairman of the committee said the arguments against this bill, in his word, are petty. I guess when you spend $1.68 trillion, whatever we have spent already in the last few months, $10 billion can seem like petty cash. You know, 10 billion here, there. I understand it can seem like petty. But that is an argument. This is $10 billion without hearings in this House over 100 of these provisions on whether they will help the economy. You know, we heard over and over that people are losing jobs every day. Let's do something about it. And in the meantime, we're going to go spend $10 billion in this bill; don't know that it will help the economy. Maybe eventually. Well, how about the people that are out of work right now? How about the people that might be able to utilize some areas that won't be able to now for certain purposes? Or like energy, for example. Oh, yes, has anybody noticed the price of gasoline is going up again, just like everybody expected it to go up. And it will go up more and more as we approach the summer. And what is happening, what are we doing in this sensitive body that we have here in Congress? We are going to put more of it off limits, more of it off limits at a time when the price is going up, the economy is struggling, people are losing jobs, people are having their pay cut, people are allowing their pay to be cut so others don't lose their jobs. And what are we going to do to help? By golly, we are going to put some more land off limits so we can't get the energy and help ourselves in this country. I was talking to some people from China not long ago. And the way they look at things, they don't look at just, you know, 10 years, 100 years, they look way down the road. And as we have seen in this body, for example, last week, we just looked at what's popular today. Gee, let's have a 90 percent tax on bonuses that we should not have ever allowed in the first place if people had done what I asked and read the stinking bills before we rushed in and passed them. But I digress. Sometimes we just look at 1 day. They look way down the road. And it was interesting to me, these individuals said, we know what the United States is doing. You keep putting your energy off limits, more and more of it. We know what you're doing. You're smart. You're smarter than somebody gives the United States credit for, they said, because we know what you're doing. You keep putting your energy off limits, knowing that other countries will use up all of the rest of the resources in the world, and then you'll be the only country with those resources, and you'll be able to maintain your status as the one superpower in the world because you've got all the resources. You were smart enough to hold them and wait to use them until after everybody else exhausted theirs. And I wished I could say, ``You're right; we see that far down the road in this Congress.'' But it's not true. We keep hurting ourselves at the worst possible time. So with this big bill here, Mr. Speaker, 100 provisions out of the 170 that didn't get a hearing in the House, we need to practice, and we can start now. I'm shocked. I'm outraged. I'm outraged and I'm shocked. I'm shocked and outraged, because once people start finding out what's in the bill, what all provisions didn't get a hearing that could have been tweaked to avoid the outrages that will come, we'll need to have people saying this to save their jobs. Some may be comforted that the Senate has had Senators--and I don't know if Senator Dodd examined all the language to make sure it was perfect, but I'm sure some Senators did. But get ready to say you're shocked and outraged.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding, also a former judge. Actually, he served on the bench longer than I did. And, Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity to try to point out some of these things tonight. What struck me months ago was hearing that trillions and trillions of dollars were being committed on behalf of the Federal Government to try to help the economy recover. So I wanted to know how much money gets spent into the Federal Government by taxpayers just paying their taxes, ordinary individual taxpayers. And the answer we got was $1.21 trillion was what was expected to be paid from individual taxpayers for the entire year of 2008. So I am thinking $1.21 trillion, that is less than supposedly Fed Chairman Bernanke and Chairman Paulson and now Secretary Geithner are committing of our money. Can you imagine what would happen with the United States' economy if you just told all the taxpayers in America: No taxes. For the whole year of 2008, no taxes. And if you paid it, you are going to get it back; and if you haven't paid it yet, don't worry about it before April 15th, because you are getting all your money that you have already paid in. Can you imagine the cars that would be bought, the car dealers and the car manufacturers that would be bailed out by Americans choosing which car they wanted to buy? That was my thinking. That was the thought process. I got a message from Newt Gingrich; he liked the idea. He said, what would you do if you added FICA in there? Well, if you added FICA, that is $65 billion per month. You could have 2 months of allowing every American to get back every dime that was being withheld for Federal withholding, both FICA and individual income tax, and do that for 2 months and still have spent less than the $350 billion that the Obama administration was looking to get from the half that was left over. It turns out there was more than half left over. There may have been $450 billion from the original 750. We haven't got the final figures, which is another reason we all opposed that bailout back in September. It was a terrible idea because it was just too open-ended. So anyway, Human Events had an article, this was their headline, Nobody Pays Taxes For 2 Months, the Gohmert Tax Holiday Plan. Now one Texas conservative is challenging Congress and the White House with a commonsense plan that is much more likely to help our economy recover more than bank bailouts or any handouts to car makers. Two months' break from income or withholding for all taxpayers. The total cost would be actually less than $350 billion. It is effectively a 70 percent tax reduction for a year. Also it was indicated by Moody's Economy, they did their own study and found that this idea would increase the 1-year gross domestic product more than any other plan that involved taxes. So I thought it was a good idea. And then I had my friend, Judge Carter from Texas, point out that apparently other people had beat me to the tax holiday idea.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I appreciate the time. And I appreciate your leading this debate. Mr. Speaker, it's good to have a chance to talk about these things. And I appreciate so much my friend from Georgia, Dr. Broun, points being made. And as he said, this is an incredible power grab that's going on. Now, we've had, made some light and been a little tongue-in-cheek tonight. But it's a little scary what's going on. And when you look at all the things that have happened so fast in 3 months, I'm telling you, I had no idea we could ever move this far this fast down the wrong road. And some say, a road to socialized, or to socialism like Europe, European socialism. It's not European socialism. It's socialism. That's what it is. And what I struggled with, as I heard our President saying not only are we going to make it harder to get energy, because for folks, Mr. Speaker, that might not know at home, today, we passed an omnibus land bill that was 170 different land bills combined into one, 100 of which or so that had not been properly through committee process and had the vetting they required. And so many of those put more and more land off limits to production of energy, took natural gas and oil away. It's going to help raise the price of gasoline at a time when people have lost their jobs, other people are cutting what they're willing to take, so that others will keep from losing their jobs. It is a tough time for many people. Now, I really feel like if the President would quit spreading the gloom and doom that our President did start--George Bush went out first and said, you know, depression's coming. But, good grief, you know, President Obama, with his gifts of communication, I thought, would help turn that around. Then he came in and also tried to set the bar low so it would be easier to get over it. Turns out that's been hurting the economy. Market's up a little bit this week, but good grief, at what price? Look at what's happened in the past. So then when I hear our President say, you know what? We're going to cut the amount you can deduct for charitable deduction. And as I heard him, as I heard a replay of the interview, he said, basically, that a deduction shouldn't be the reason that you make a contribution to a charity. Well, that's nice. But it encourages people to make charitable deductions. So we start demeaning people who are making charitable deductions. Goodness, they shouldn't be doing it just to get a--you shouldn't make charitable contributions to get a deduction. So you're going to belittle the people that are helping the charities, when most of us know it's the charities, after a disaster, that can move straight in and immediately start helping people, not only in this country, but in other countries around the world. But whereas the U.S. government, we have to go through the government in another country, and often, whether it's a famine or something, we've been propping up governments that had no business being propped up because we're trying to get charity to the people, whereas charities can run right in and take care of it. But anyway, I've struggled. Now, why would the President here, at this time when we're taking over AIG, taking over the car dealers, taking over Wall Street, why, at this time, would you choose to limit the deductible of charitable contributions? And then it hit me. It hit me. It's all about the GRE. All about the GRE. That's what all of this is about, the GRE, the Government Running Everything. That's what it's about, the Government Running Everything. And that's what all of these things are about. You know, people in positions that should have known better, not paying taxes. People, I mean, Secretary Geithner, for goodness sakes. I was on a conference call with constituents. One lady I didn't know before the call was telling me she had just retired from the IRS. She said, IRS employees are incensed that they now have a boss who didn't pay his taxes when he knew he was supposed to. And she went on to say at one point, I'd gone over to the boats at Bossier City in Louisiana, and won $600. And when I went to file my tax return and filed it, I forgot I had gotten that $600 that I won over there. So I immediately filed an amended return. And because I was filing an amended return, under the IRS rules, she said, an IRS agent who underpays taxes, no ifs, ands or buts, there's no excuses. You're fired. That's it. No recourse. She said, I was being fired, and the only thing that saved me was my supervisor pointed out that I had not underpaid my taxes. I was getting money back, so the amended tax return didn't actually cause her to have to pay anything. Therefore, she was able to scramble, with her supervisor's help, and keep her job over $600, where she'd paid all the taxes that was due. But now, everybody else in the IRS has a boss that has done exactly what she was about to be fired for if she hadn't overpaid her taxes. It isn't right. And it appears that there are two standards already under this administration, one for powerful people, and then the other one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes. That isn't right. And we don't need the government running everything. Look at what we've done. You know, the government should be about making sure there's a level playing field so everybody can play fairly. And then we're to provide for a common defense against enemies, foreign and domestic. That means cheaters. So if people are cheating out on the playing field, we move in, we go after them. But it turns out we have been so busy trying to tell auto makers how to make cars, trying to tell banks who they have to loan to, what they have to do, we have been so busy trying to tell everybody how to run their life, the government running everything, that we haven't been taking care of going after the cheats like Madoff. That should never have happened. I don't care which administration's in charge. Apparently it was going on under a lot more than one. It doesn't matter. The government needs to quit trying to run everything. Go after the cheats. Make sure everybody plays by the same rules, and if they don't, then punish them. But we should not be running everything, and that's what we see over and over. And I hope the American people will think about these things, Mr. Speaker, as they start seeing gas prices go higher and higher, at the very same time we're putting more and more of our energy, our own energy off limits. And we're making, having more and more dictation, this cap-and-tax, going to add thousands of dollars to people's budgets they have to pay when we've got a budget here running out of control. And it is deeply disconcerting. I know there are some people that are saying, well, maybe the American people will forgive the Republicans for overspending previously now that they've seen the Democratic majority has just more than doubled anything Republicans ever did, and give us another chance. I hope they will. I know those who were pushing the overspending before have learned their lesson. But the trouble is, I don't know how much more of this damage to the country we can survive for the next year and a half before the next election. But I appreciate the chance to point these out. And I would yield back to my dear friend, fellow former judge, Judge Carter.

Mr. GOHMERT. What gets interesting, CNN had this report and had the quote from our President. He said, ``I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics. I don't want to send a message to the American people that there are two sets of standards, one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes.'' That was February 3, 2009. Well, here is a chart that indicates that may have been going on, anyway, in spite of what the President said. You have got some powerful people here that have taken a tax holiday for a number of years, no penalties, no interest, where on the other side you have ordinary folks who are paying their taxes, and that is the quote from our President, ``ordinary folks who are paying their taxes,'' he said he didn't want two sets of standards. Well, we have had two sets of standards. They don't get any tax holiday. The leadership here has fought it tooth and nail. If you don't make your payments, there are no excuses. They come after you for the penalty and interest and all kinds of stuff to go with it. So, unfortunately, despite the assurances of the President, there are two standards that have been taking place here.

Mr. GOHMERT. It is really ironic, but it has been about 30 years ago, back then, a comedian, he wasn't so much an actor back then, I think he had been with a group called the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. But he was out on his own as a comedian. Steve Martin was originally from Waco, Texas. He went to Waco High. Anyway, as part of his comedy schtick, he would say, you know, I'm going to write a book, ``How to Have $10 Million and Not Pay Taxes.'' And then he would lead the audience on. Well, they would want to know, how do you get $10 million and not pay taxes? He would eventually say, okay, okay, I'll let you in on the secret how you do it. First, you accept $10 million, which is pretty funny, because nobody just gets themselves $10 million unless you're a special person or something. And then he said, you just don't pay taxes. This is what Steve Martin said 30 years ago. Just don't pay taxes. And if they ever catch you, all you have to do is say, ``I forgot.'' Now, 30 years later, it is basically what we are seeing. People, powerful people. We don't want two sets of standards, one for powerful people. Well, the powerful people are able to file their forms, and if they have not paid their taxes, then they could just write, yes, ``Rangel Rule,'' or perhaps they could say, ``I forgot.'' Or ``it was just an honest mistake,'' or, the favorite one apparently of powerful people, ``Look, I used TurboTax. It's not my fault. TurboTax did that. I didn't do it.'' And then that saves you penalty and interest. So there ought to be a number of things, Rangel Rule perhaps, but TurboTax Rule. Maybe that would also free you up from interest or penalty on your taxes. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. There have been so many wonderful points made here. I say wonderful as an adjective, when actually it is tough to say wonderful about such a very perplexing and disconcerting issue. One thing that I haven't heard mentioned yet is about another issue that is contained in the budget, and that is with regard to restrictions on charitable deductions. Has the gentleman mentioned that? And I appreciate the time you yield. What struck me this weekend as I thought about President Obama and the Democratic leadership trying to restrict the deductions for charitable donations is, why would you do this? Because we know, worldwide, the best help that goes to people in need, whether they are starving or after an emergency, comes from the charities, the American charities. They can go straight in and start helping those people, whereas, our government, it has to go through the other government, often a third-world government, and sometimes we end up propping up really bad governments, just trying to help the people if we go through the government. So why would the Democratic leadership and the President be wanting to cut down on charitable donations? And that is when it hit me this weekend. It is about the GRE, the GRE, the Government Running Everything. That is what it is about. It is about power. That is where this restriction on deductions for charitable contributions is coming from. They want the government controlling everything. They see how philanthropic the American people are, how they want to help out of the generousness of their heart, and they say, gee, these charitable organizations, they are nongovernment organizations, NGOs are doing a great job. That ought to be us. Why don't we control that too? When the government's job ought to be making sure there is a level playing field; everybody has an equal opportunity, not equal results, but an equal opportunity. And our job is to provide for the common defense against enemies, both foreign and domestic. And if we do, we go after the cheaters. That is our job. But we have been so busy trying to run everything, we have not been going after the cheaters effectively; not on Wall Street, not in corporate America, not out there in the streets. That is what we have got to get back to. But I appreciate the gentleman yielding. But I just had to share, that is what hit me this weekend. It is about the GRE, the government running everything. This group running things now wants all power, including the power of charitable organizations. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. So, would it be inappropriate to ask the gentleman who controls the time to specify how I am shredding the Constitution when I say someone else is doing so?