Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. That's right. One of the things that really breaks my heart, though, about all of this, we can talk about it from a lofty level here in the second floor of the U.S. Capitol, but the truth is during the Bush terms of office, Republicans went from a time when they were the ones that balanced the budget in the 1990s, and they moved to a time when there was just euphoria. Yes, tax cuts happened, and as a result, record revenues just poured into the U.S. Treasury in greater amounts than ever before. It wasn't the tax cuts that were a problem. It wasn't the record revenue coming in. We, and it was before I got here, but we were spending too much money. In my first 2 years here beginning in January of 2005, we were spending too much money. It was a problem. We were not reining in money. And as a result, by November of 2006, people were sick of it. It was irresponsible, and it was so grossly unfair to our children and the generations to follow us, we got voted out of the majority. And Democrats talked about our irresponsible spending, that we were running up the deficit and it was so unfair to the children, according to the Democrats at that time. And the voters said, you're right, these Republicans have lost their way, get them out of the majority. And now here we've seen with the Democratic majority, about an 80- vote margin in the House, a Democrat majority in the Senate, in a week's time, there has been $1.2 trillion in allocations above the budget. That's the same amount that all American income taxpayers will pay in for personal income tax for 2008. We'd have been better off telling everybody that paid individual taxes in America for the whole year you get all your money back.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. When you add the $350 billion that was just last week, then that gets you there. But the thing is, as a judge, my friend Judge Carter, Judge Poe, we have sentenced people who have done irresponsible and just really unconscionable things to their children. We have sent them to prison. And here in this body has so loaded up our children and our grandchildren with debt that it is unconscionable. We're out here just throwing money around, and they're going to have to take care of that debt. They didn't get the message. They told America, you put us in the majority and we will be more responsible. And what they have done is multiplied the irresponsibility, and it's heartbreaking. The only reason we don't already have a runaway inflation with the kind of money that's been spent and printed and borrowed is because fuel went down by more than 50 percent. As fuel goes up for the summer, we're going to have runaway inflation, and nations have fallen for that reason.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. Obviously he was mistaking me for Ted Poe, but I appreciate the comments.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. Actually, I got a number of positive inquiries from some of our Blue Dog friends. But as far as from the Speaker, there has been no interest in bringing it to the floor. When I met President Obama yesterday, I brought it up to him and I said, This does everything you promised, giving a tax cut to everybody. I said, It doesn't have the $250,000 cap on income. We could add that. It does what you promised better than anything. He said, Wow, have you talked to Larry? He was talking about Larry Summers, who was standing right there. I said, No, I haven't. He said, You guys need to talk.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chair, $350 billion last week and now with what we are going to add this week, it is about $1.2 trillion. The reason that is significant, that is basically the amount that every individual taxpayer paying together in 2008 paid into the U.S. Treasury. We could give every taxpayer, individual taxpayer in America, all of their money back for last year. You want to see the economy explode, try that. That would be extraordinary. Now we did too much deficit spending in the last 6 years when we were in the majority, and now the Democratic majority is doing the same thing. You can spend a country out of existence. Iceland just did it. The Soviet Union fell because they spent too much money trying to catch up with us. And we can do the same thing. We owe more than this to our children and our grandchildren. In fact, when we elected a President who promised change, I really hoped we were going to have change and get away from the deficit spending of the last 8 years. But instead of getting change, what we are getting with the original bill here is much, much, much, much more of the same. We need to quit spending ourselves out of existence.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. The bill is H.R. 143. It is a two-month tax holiday that lets people keep all of their own withholding and all of their FICA for two months. And all it takes is passage and the next paycheck, it is not six months down the road, it is all of their withholding in the check as soon as we pass the bill. That is what H.R. 143 is about. I hope people call the White House and say President Obama, you have inspired me so please, let us have our own money. H.R. 143 is the way to do it and the way that the President can keep his promise.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Texas, as well, Dr. Burgess and Dr. Gingrey. And I thank you, Mr. Speaker. But this all ties in together, when we're talking about health care, I had my staff pull the last numbers they could get. And for the year 2006, if you add together all of the Federal tax dollars that are spent on health care, and you add that to the State tax dollars that are spent on health care in the year 2006 per household, it was right around $8,400. Well, $8,400 per household in America? You know, we have talked about health savings accounts and how that could restore power into the hands of the American public. That could restore the good old doctor-patient relationship. Because what we have right now is not a doctor-patient relationship. What we have is a doctor either insurance company or government patient relationship, because either the insurance companies or governments are between the doctor and the patient. Well, man, some people, I have had retired folks say, well, I can't ever have a health savings account. I can never accumulate that money because I'm too old and I'm too sick to ever accumulate that money. But if you look at it, and you go, wow, $8,400, that was in 2006. Now it is even more than that. But you could give every household in America a $3,000 health savings account. And if you establish this relationship with you and your doctor, and then here is another $2,000 or $3,000 on top of that to buy your catastrophic care insurance, then you get back to a doctor-patient relationship. But why would we not want to do that? Well, I would submit to you it's because there is a culture of arrogance in Washington, D.C., and it has been here for a while. It's not a new thing. It has been building. And I think it is one of the things that actually turned voters off about the Republican administration. I think the world of George W. Bush. I like that man. He is a good man. But he got some bad advice from some arrogant people. And look at what was done and the advice that was given. Heck, back in September, the advice was, well, we may have a depression, but if you will give me starting off $350 billion but maybe get to $700 billion, start with $350 billion, I can fix it. That is arrogance. The people in America are not smart enough to fix this. Give me the money, and I will fix it. It permeates this town. It permeates this capital. It's an arrogance that says, ``the American people are just not smart enough. They wouldn't be able to go back to the doctor-patient relationship the way it used to be. They wouldn't be able to help the economy by spending their own money properly. Let's make them give it to us through taxes. And then we will spend it. Because they're just not smart enough to know how to spend it in a way that is best for them.'' And that is what we've got. So you have the Bush administration that took $350 billion, and Secretary Paulson, King Henry, was going to spend that in such a way that it would encourage lending and get the credit flowing and so people who had fallen behind on their mortgage could come forward and refinance and borrow more money to catch up. This was going to help fix that. Well, they gave all that money to the banks. And now it's even harder to get a loan than it was before they squandered all that $350 billion. So what have we gotten? Well, now, frankly I have had, and I'm still holding out, hope for the Obama administration. They come right in. They say, Bush, before you leave, why don't you go ahead and request that other $350 billion? Because we are going to want to spend that. And then on top of that, we're going to ask for another $800 billion or so. And you know what? We may need $1.2 trillion before it's all over. Now that is interesting. Of course, as my friends here from Georgia and Texas know, I filed a 2-month tax holiday bill that just says, we don't need the arrogant bureaucrats in Washington to spend our money because we are too stupid to spend it ourselves. What we need is to give the American people the strength of this country, the American people, let them have their own tax dollars for 2 months. If you let them keep every dime of withholding for Federal income tax and every dime for FICA withholding, if you let the American people keep their own money for 2 months, then it comes up to around $334 billion. That would jump-start this economy. Now, we've been saying that for a couple of months. And here, lo and behold, within the last 10 days, Moody's Economy came out with a study that showed of all the tax proposals--and that included tax proposals that I know my friends here agree with, like cutting capital gains and cutting corporate taxes. I get sick and tired of hearing people say that we will never get manufacturing jobs back in America. Because some of us went and talked to CEOs in China and asked, why did you move over here? I figured they would say because labor is cheap. They said, you know, we had a lot better quality control in the United States with our products. But the corporate tax is less than half here, and they cut us deals on corporate tax. So we agree. We need to drop the corporate tax and drop capital gains. That will get jobs flooding back in here. But when it comes down to the American money, the thing that will get the economy going the quickest and that will increase the gross domestic product faster in 1 year than any of these tax proposals, it is the tax holiday proposal giving the American people their own money. Now, it's interesting to me that President Obama is now saying, do you know what? We may need $1.2 trillion to really get the American economy going. Do you know why that triggered something special in me? It is because, I know, I asked for the numbers, the amount of money that the American individual taxpayers paid per year this last year is right at $1.2 trillion in individual income tax. Wow. Can you imagine? Can you get your mind, Mr. Speaker, around the thought of not paying income tax for a whole year? Can you imagine if the American public were told, do you know what? We had wanted a $1.2 trillion stimulus package to try the best we can to get the economy going. But then it hit us. Do you know the American people are not as stupid as we have characterized them as being? So let's let the American public have that $1.2 trillion for this year. They won't pay any income tax for the whole year. It would be the same thing. No individual income tax or giving Washington $1.2 trillion and let them try to spend their way into helping the American public. Well, the American public is not as stupid as this town has cast them as being. They can figure out good ways to spend the money that they earned and getting this economy going. Because what are they trying to do? Well, we want to help Detroit. We want to help with jobs. Can you imagine if everybody in America had their own withholding and FICA withholding for a year, the cars that would be bought, the stock that would be bought, the homes that would be bought, the homes that would be built and the businesses that would be built with their own money? They don't need some arrogant bureaucrat in Washington saying, give me $1.2 trillion, and I will try to spend it the right way to get the economy going. If you let the American people have $1.2 trillion with no individual income tax for a year, this economy would explode. It would be going so good, people would want to rush back into America with these jobs, because this is where it's all happening. So, I'm still holding out great hope, because one of the things, and Mr. Speaker, I know, I feel sure that President Obama inspires you as he does me, I sat there listening to that inaugural address. And I was inspired. And I know there are critics out there who say, well, I was expecting a better speech from him. I really was. That was a great speech. The problem that President Obama has is he is so good at speech making, people have come to set the bar so high that he can give a great speech and people are not impressed. Well, I was impressed. Of course he talked about Washington, and that struck a chord with me. When he said: ``With hope and virtue, let us brave the icy currents,'' well, I agree with him. With hope, we have got that. Virtue, well, we just approved a new Treasury Secretary that wasn't virtuous enough to pay his income tax, but apparently we are going to overlook that kind of virtue requirement. Yes, we have some conflict of interest problems with some other appointments. Maybe we will just go forward with hope because we are losing the virtue issue here with some of the recent appointments. But I am hopeful that this President will understand some of the things that some of the people around President Bush did not, and that is the American people are not as stupid as this town has cast them. They are smart enough to know how to spend their own money, smart enough to get the economy going if we let them have their own money to do it. I am still holding out hope. As the poet says, there is the hope that springs eternal in the human breast. I have got it and I know you guys have it too, Mr. Speaker. We have that hope that springs eternal, but we need to recognize that the arrogance in this town, the arrogance of this capital is much too pervasive and that the hope for this country does not arrive on Air Force One, but we need to take responsibility. We need to let the American public get the economy going with their own money, cut the arrogance and recognize the American people for the backbones of this country that they are. I appreciate the opportunity to vent a little bit from my friend, Dr. Burgess.

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman is. The gentleman has been a confidante and adviser and has been here longer than I have. I have greatly appreciated the advice and wisdom of Dr. Burgess.

Mr. GOHMERT. Dr. Gingrey is a cosponsor and trusted confidante and adviser.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, I do oppose the bill, Madam Speaker.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I would appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, I do, Madam Speaker.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I applaud the chairman's efforts to try to rein in some of the actions by the Secretary of the Treasury. I think it's well intentioned. But it directs the Secretary of the Treasury to take action. So does the motion to recommit. The bill itself attempts to direct the Treasury Secretary to take certain actions and to be more accountable, whereas the motion to recommit directs the Treasury Secretary in a different direction and says he must put the $350 billion back in the Treasury and allow a 2- month tax holiday so the American taxpayer can bail out the economy, not a Treasury Secretary. We've seen enough of that for the last 3 months. So, Madam Speaker, I understand the chairman's point of order. I believe it's inappropriate. But if there were a vote, even on a vote to table, the American taxpayers understand it's a vote on whether the Treasurer gets to trickle down on them or whether they get to spend the money that they themselves earned and prop up the economy by whom they select.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, we took up the issue of the Troubled Asset Recovery, whatever TARP stands for. $350 billion has been thrown, as one man wished it to be, as he directed. There's another $350 billion that has been allocated. Now, the question is, who's going to spend it? Now, I've got a bill that I filed, it was, I think, the first bill laid down over here on the Clerk's desk the minute after we were sworn in, and it's a bill to allow the people that earned the money to spend it. The Treasury Secretary would have to put it in the general revenue and use that to cover any shortfalls from withholding not coming in. This isn't some rebate where we spend millions to let people know you may get a rebate check, and then millions to process it, and then by and by, pie in the sky, they get a rebate check down the road for $300, $600. This is real money we're talking about, in the account, in the hands of those who earned it as soon as they get their paycheck. If we pass this bill next Thursday that I've proposed, people on their Friday paychecks could have all of their Federal withholding in that check, all of their FICA withholding in that check. So anybody that's working, performing services, including self- employed, they have a 2-month tax holiday. That money is immediately in their hands, in the economy, not some bureaucrat in Washington who is so arrogant that he thinks you couldn't possibly know where to spend that money to help the economy and help yourself. So, we've asked, we surveyed people who have e-mailed in and asked, what would you--look at the withholding and see what, tell us what you would use your money for. Number 1 answer? Pay off credit cards, catch up on loans, including the mortgage. Well, Paulson's out there spending hundreds of billions of dollars to try to loosen up lending so people can refinance and borrow more money to catch up on the mortgage they got behind on in the last year, many, back when gas prices were $4 a gallon. Let them catch up with their own money. They don't need another loan. Others said they'd go out to eat. They'd stop, they'd use it for entertainment. Others said they'd invest it in their small business to develop it. Others said they'd invest it in the stock markets. That would help the market. Ten percent of those said they'd use it to buy a new home. That would help them with their down payment. There's so much in the withholding. Others said they'd use it to buy a car. Some said they'd put it in savings. But that would give banks more money to make more loans, so that would be a good thing as well. Some got very specific. They said they'd buy farm supplies, help with their college education this year. Some said they'd buy insulation for their home to help on the energy bill. One said he'd buy a stove and an oven. Another said he'd use--well, there were many who said they'd repair and remodel their home. Others said they'd pay for medical procedures that they need. How about that? It's not some guy in Washington paying. It's the people that earned the money that would get to spend it. Another was going to put on a new roof for his home so his family would be dryer and warmer. The people that earned the money know what to do with it. It is the height of arrogance that in this body, we'd say, no, no, no, Gohmert's got this bill, H.R. 143, that lets the people that earned it have a 2-month tax holiday. We can't do that. We can't let that come to the floor for a vote. I proposed this amendment yesterday. Got shut out. They didn't want it on the floor. Probably pass. People would be afraid to vote against the people. And that's what that vote is. But I just submit, Madam Speaker, if this continues, and I keep being shut out on getting this idea from the people for the people by the people, and the votes keep being that we can't bring a bill like that to the floor for a vote, it may be, come November of 2010 that the voters will say, we want to elect somebody that will do what needs doing and not helping their cronies. Oh, yes, we heard, well, the leadership over here in the House has the idea for this great TARP money. We're going to use it for infrastructure. Oh, yeah. Well, apparently the bill being proposed only has 5 or 6 percent for infrastructure. You let people have their own money, you let them spend it where they need spending, the money will be in the economy, the economy will increase, and everybody will be better off and the people will have heard from us as they wanted.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow my dear friend from Texas, from Houston, the former judge in Houston. And I appreciate him saying he wants to stand with the homeowners. I don't think when we passed this bailout bill back in September we were standing with the homeowners, because we weren't. That money got given to banks, all kind of places. We're still trying to find out where all of it went, and we don't know because the bill didn't have enough restrictions. So I appreciate the chairman trying to add restrictions. But in looking at all of this money, $350 billion still to be spent, with all our efforts to try to pin down the Secretary of the Treasury, try to keep him from giving it to his buddies and hurting his enemies and personal things that may or may not have happened so far in the last 4 months, you really want to stand with the homeowners. What I've been hearing from people, homeowners who got a little behind on payments, they got behind last summer when gas prices went up, many of them did, and they couldn't pay all the bills. So instead of having this money routed through the Secretary of the Treasury, as much as we might try to bind his hands, and then on around to maybe through banks and require them to lend, that kind of thing, if we provided a 2-month tax holiday where no withholding is taken out of the workers' check for 2 months, and then you don't take out FICA for 2 months, then it's still more than paid for by the $350 billion. It's a 2-month tax holiday. Now, President-elect Obama had said he would do exactly what this proposal does, except he'd have a $250,000 cap on income. I have a bill that doesn't propose the $250,000 cap, and it still comes in around $334 billion. That's what will help the homeowners. It's instantaneous. We don't have to put restrictions on it. We don't have to do anything other than let the homeowners have it. I've had some people tell me they want to get out from under their gas-guzzling car. But last summer when prices went up, the value of their car went down and they can't come out from under it. A 2-month tax holiday will do it.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Midland, Mr. Conaway. I guess it's that trained certified public accountant mind that sees with such clarity. You know, you've got your debits and your credits, and you come here to Congress and it should balance. And I appreciate the clarity that all your training and experience has given. I ran across some quotes here that are right in line with what my friend from Midland has been saying. Here's a quote from Dr. Richard Wagner, Professor of Economics at George Mason University. He said, ``The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money.'' What an insightful quote. Another quote, ``As Congress and President-elect Obama work together to help middle class families and get our economy back on track, the deficit estimate makes it clearer than ever that we cannot borrow and spend our way back to prosperity when we're already running an annual deficit of more than $1 trillion. The reality is that the decisions we make today will impact future generations, and burying our children and grandchildren under a mountain of debt to pay for more wasteful government spending would be the height of irresponsibility.'' I've come to know so many wonderful people on both sides of the aisle in my 4 years that I've been here. There may be somebody in this body that doesn't like children, but I don't know who it would be. I find a commonality of just a real love for children. You see children come onto the floor under 12 are allowed here. We saw the rostrum, the dais just completely covered up with children as Speaker Pelosi was sworn in. And children just bring a smile when you see these wholesome, refreshing children, bright eyes, full of hope gathered around. But it breaks your heart when you realize the kind of debt we're loading these children up with. I mean, nobody in this body I know of would intentionally go about harming any child, but we're doing it unintentionally. It has historically been the general nature of mankind, it's not true with all species, but with mankind generally--except for some exceptions of some really horrible people--mankind's nature is to protect our children; and in this body, while I've been here, we've continued to load them up. And President-elect Obama talked about change and hope. And frankly, the Democrats had been spending way too much money in the eighties and in the 1990s up to `95. There were a few years there where Republicans were doing the right thing, and then they couldn't help themselves, they started spending money like crazy, loading up the kids with more debt than they will ever be able to pay. And I was really--and am still--holding out hope that the change that we can get and we need the most from this administration coming in is quit killing our children with debt, just overloading them with debt. And, you know, the change is not going to come by throwing money at the economy; we've been doing that for the last 4 months, it has accomplished nothing. There are some great insightful writings and thoughts from economists now that, although it was the most incredibly good of intentions through the thirties, the economy did not get help, despite all the massive spending and government programs, until World War II. So as people here have heard me say many times, I think the number one duty of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. We need to have defense spending. And invariably every time an administration comes in and seeks their cuts by cutting the military, cutting spending with defense contractors, then our military gets at a low point. And as President Ronald Reagan had said, you know, no country ever gets attacked because people perceive it as being too strong, they perceive it as being vulnerable, so they attack it. It is always a good thing, and preventative, when a nation is strong militarily. We don't need to be cutting the military, we don't need to be cutting defense spending. In fact, when the government is going to spend and help the economy, it ought to be on things that government has to do anyway. So when we look at some of the proposed projects in which funding is being sought and maybe spent, some of the things that have been listed so far as being ready to go, shovel ready, ready to have money, $350,000 for an Albuquerque, New Mexico fitness center, we need to make our people more physically fit. I have been deeply troubled that with all the emphasis on No Child Left Behind, we've cut art programs, we've cut music programs, we've cut all kinds of programs that really can make people a more whole person, and that includes physical fitness. You know, when I was a kid and President Kennedy proposed physical fitness for children, I really didn't like it. I thought he ought to mind his own business, actually. But I can tell you that the physical fitness programs that were instituted--and that wasn't a mandate, it wasn't a requirement, it was an encouragement, he led by encouraging. And schools started having physical fitness programs and the kids got better off physically which made them better off mentally. And to see the obesity that has resulted, we don't need, as a Federal Government, to start telling people you can't buy fast foods, you can't eat this, you can't eat that. Just everybody exercise, and then push that with the children; set those good patterns early and that will take care of itself. It teaches discipline, and that is something that far too many in this body have not been able to overcome. Now, one of the things that you learn in law school is to rationalize almost anything. You get good at it. If you become a good lawyer, you get good at rationalizing basically any conduct--or you can. And I see people that have been here in Congress for many years, many that did not go to law school, and they have gotten so good at rationalizing they can rationalize almost anything. We don't need to be doing that. We need to be getting to what helps. But I've heard people try to rationalize on this floor, in this Congress in the 4 years I've been here. And I never seek to impose my religious beliefs on anyone else, but I enjoy it when people quote Scripture. And I've heard Scripture quoted on this floor many times, but often it's during tax debate. And I've heard people ridiculing, you know, some of you Republicans say you're a Christian, but Jesus said take care of the widows and orphans; Jesus said, even as you've done to the least of these, my children, you've done to me; Jesus said do unto others as you would have them to do unto you; and here you guys are wanting to cut give away programs to all these different people. But I've searched Scripture, and for those who like to rely on it, you can look, Jesus never said, Go ye, therefore, use and abuse your taxing authority, take somebody else's money and give it away. He said you do it. ``You'' do it. You do it individually. You help. You reach out. You give with your money, you give with what you have. Don't go abusing your power as a Member of Congress to take from somebody else to give; do it and you will be the beneficiary. That was the teaching, not for government to take other people's money. Because what is taxation? It's theft. Although we legalize it, therefore, it's legal theft. We take somebody else's money and we use it the way we want to use it. So, that is a concern. Here's another quote from an assistant professor of economics, Justin Ross, from the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. He says, ``The empirical evidence overwhelmingly rejects Federal Government deficit spending as the best method for stimulating the economy, and it is generally unsupportive of it having any stimulus effect at all.'' We saw that all through the thirties. No matter how much money the government gave away, no matter how many government programs, there was nothing permanent about what was done. Now, we hear a lot of people say that this is the worst economy in 70 years and 80 years, going back to the thirties, it rivals those days. I was mentioning before, but I had a man over 90 years old approach me in my district say he was sick and tired of people saying that, that what we're going through right now has no comparison. For people that are out of work, it even has no comparison to the 1930s because there were times, he said, when we would go a couple of days without even eating, and now people get upset and think they're broke if they don't have two or three cars, computers, cell phones, and that kind of thing. They had none of that. And you go back to the late seventies, early eighties before the big tax cut by President Reagan and we had double-digit inflation, we had double-digit unemployment. We're not even close to double-digit inflation. But if we keep throwing away money and printing money like crazy and borrowing and trying to tax more, then we're headed for major, major trouble. But you go back to the late seventies, early eighties, and the research we've done indicates that key industries that experienced a big downturn as a result of the recession in the late seventies, early eighties were housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production. And these did not see a recovery until much later. I might also say, for those who look for answers in Scripture I referred to earlier, when people have criticized me for not wanting to take other people's money to give it away to my charity of choice, that they would prefer to do it, I brought that up and someone said, oh, well, that's not being very Christian. And I point them to the example of Zacchaeus. Because if you look at Zacchaeus and his example, the first thing he did after he met Jesus was to go cut taxes. And, in fact, not only did he cut taxes, he gave a four-for-one rebate, as I recall, to those who he had wronged. And I have no doubt that in cutting taxes after he met Jesus that he stimulated the economy all around because it meant the government wasn't getting that money, the tax collectors weren't getting that money, people were able to spend their own. Now, I was really amazed when some of us, a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, went to China a few years ago, and talking to CEOs and since then talking to other CEOs, why was your industry moved to China? Because I figure the answer is going to be cheaper labor; we didn't have to deal with labor unions; easier environmental--the number one answer was not any of those things. They said our quality control was so good in the United States, Americans just really make good products. But the number one answer was that the corporate tax rate in China was so much cheaper than it is here. And you look around the world at where economies are growing, and they have dropped corporate rates. They have dropped capital gains rates so people are able to keep more of their own money. And what we see, we have seen over and over going back to President Kennedy, President Reagan and the early days of President Bush. When you drop the tax rate, the economy is encouraged, expands, and you get even more revenue back into the coffers of the government. So everybody comes out ahead. Now, some of the other things we've heard about the Democratic stimulus package that is being worked on is that it could virtually triple the current year's deficit. What we've been hearing is that it will grow a deficit that's about a 50 percent increase over the post-World War II record of 6 percent. Also, we've been told, as my friend from New Jersey alluded to, that 20 percent of the 3 million jobs that President-elect Obama wants to create are in government. We don't produce a whole lot in government. Some would say what we produce is not worth producing and is more harmful than good. Regardless, we don't need 600,000 new government jobs. That is overloading the economy with government. And as former Senator Gramm used to say, When we have more people in the wagon than pulling the wagon, the wagon's going to stop and the country will be economically dead at that point. Spending, though, disguised as tax cuts is not a tax cut. As many writers have said, if we want to stimulate the economy, what we really need to do is have a tax cut. That's why I filed in December and have re-filed the first day we were in session this week a 2-month tax holiday bill, H.R. 143. I'm hoping that I will get to talk with someone in the incoming administration because President-elect Obama said he wanted to provide a tax cut for every American who made less than $250,000. My bill makes sure every wage earner, including self-employed businesses, get a two-twelfths tax cut for the year 2009. It's not just a stimulus package, but that is the result. But the fact is, if we in this body allowed people who earned the money to choose winners and not give money to people and companies they think are losers, then they make the decisions. And I can guarantee you, they're going to make better decisions than we've seen out of the Treasury department over the last 4 months. It's like we were reading a moment ago, when people spend their own money, they do it more wisely than when they're spending someone else's money, especially when we have the problems with accountability that government always has. It doesn't matter which administration is in office. When there is money to be given away by the government, accountability is a nightmare. It's a huge problem, and despite all the promises, we have got a Republican administration that's been in office the last 4 months during this huge bailout, but we have had a Democratic majority in the House, a Democratic majority in the Senate, and no matter which party is in charge, accountability has been disastrous when it comes to holding people's feet to the fire with government money. So it is not the answer to go throwing money at all these different things. Other proposed giveaways would be $94 million for a parking garage at the Orange Bowl in Miami. What a great bowl, what a great venue for football, but there doesn't need to be a Federal giveaway. $4.5 million for Greton, Florida, to bottle water with recycled bottles, well, that's a wonderful, noble goal. But what government should do is create incentives for other people to do good things. There's been too much of a problem with Congress that we decide we're just going to give away money, throw it at a problem, and think we have done a good thing. The highest and best use of this body over and above making sure that we provide for the common defense is encouraging people to do the best that they can with what they have, use their talents, use their God- given potential. One of the things that drove me off the bench as a district judge and made me want to run for this office to get to serve here was as a judge handling felonies, I kept seeing more and more women come into my court that I had to sentence for a couple of things. One was for welfare fraud and another was for their involvement in dealing drugs. And you get a complete presentence investigation report on people's background, and I was amazed how similar so many of the stories were. And this is not a racial issue because, when I dealt with it, there were women of all races having the same problem. They would have somebody encourage them, because they were bored with high school, to drop out and have a baby because the government will send you a check. So they would drop out, have a baby, and they'd get a government check. And then they'd find out, it's not really enough for a baby and a woman to live on. So they would have another child and another child, and they kept getting further and further behind. And you go back to the 1960s and the great society and how well- intentioned that was, but what occurred was the government saw single women having to provide for children with some deadbeat dad out there not helping. So, with the best of intentions and wanting to help, they said let's give them a check. So they started giving a check for every child that a woman could have out of wedlock. And when they come 40 years later to my court to be sentenced, over and over I'm seeing women who are lured into this rut by the Federal Government well-intentioned giveaways, and they couldn't get out. We provided them no incentive to get out. I hear from people in housing projects that said, you know, we were trying to save a nest egg so we could move out of Federal housing someday and buy our own home. So we're saving up a down payment. Then we were told by some authorities that we had too much money in savings, that we either had to buy stuff or give it away or spend it somehow, get rid of it, or we'd have to move out of Federal housing. I mean, what's wrong with this? The Federal Government ought to be about encouraging people to do what's good for them because ultimately that's good for the country, and instead, we lure people into a rut and we don't let them out. And so some women would get desperate, and they'd realize I've got to get a job but I also need a handout from the government with the children. So they get a job, they wouldn't report that to the Federal welfare authorities, and they'd come before me as criminals for welfare fraud. Others would see how much money was being made in dealing drugs, and that's no way out of a rut. And it wasn't, because that's bad for everybody. But you come back to the premise, the Federal Government luring people into a rut with giveaway programs that don't let them out. Now, I am not sure exactly what the answer was in the 1960s specifically, but I know what the general answer is. The government should provide incentives to do the right thing. So instead of, you know, giving people a check and luring them into this rut they can never get out of, maybe we give them incentives to finish their education, help with day care. If we had done that, we wouldn't see this boom over the last 40 years of children without enough parents that care about them. So that's what we encouraged, and seriously we've gotten what we've paid for. We could drop the corporate tax. We could drop the cap gains tax. I get sick and tired of hearing people saying we'll never get manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Ridiculous. Of course we can. They've left because corporate taxes are a lot cheaper elsewhere, and people that come on to this floor and say, oh, let's don't tax the people, let's tax the corporations, that is so disingenuous because the fact is, corporations, if they don't pass that on and make their customers and clients pay, then they don't stay in business. The corporation doesn't pay that tax. It's a conduit, but it comes from the individuals getting their services. But it seems to be a good passing of the buck by Congress when we do that. But The Detroit News itself, home of our automakers, say, Tax cuts work best to stimulate the economy. If Congress agrees to take on this enormous debt in the name of stimulating the economy, it better do everything possible to keep it from becoming history's biggest pork barrel. The Pittsburgh PAPER said, As Club for Growth's Pat Toomey urges, the elimination of the capital gains rate would be the better solution. That's what is really needed is what National Review's Larry Kudlow said. A fool bore, supply-side tax rate reduction that could even morph into full-fledged corporate tax reform. That would be amazing. We'd get those jobs back overnight. And then with energy, we've had this big energy debate the last 6 months, and now people have gone to sleep on the issue. We should not. We have still got to get energy independent. And we heard from experts who said if we will simply open up ANWR, and it isn't a beautiful, pristine area that is often depicted on television. There's nothing there. It's flat. There's not a better place on earth to drill because there's nothing there. Animals can't live there. If the caribou come, they have to pass through immediately because there's nothing there to live on. Drill there. We'd have a tiny footprint, and we were told that immediately we'd have 250,000 new jobs, and by the time they were ready for production, there would be 1 million new jobs. There's a third of President-elect Obama's promise of 3 million new jobs, and we don't have to give money away. We don't have to increase taxes. The private sector will take care of it. All we have to make sure is the environmental concerns are addressed so that we don't hurt the environment. We could increase the jobs immediately by opening up more of the Outer Continental Shelf. What an incredible stimulus that would be. A Boston Herald editorial said, a real stimulus bill--the expiring tax cuts are tax increases and history shows that tax increases in a recession, depression or recovery can be deadly. We should not go there. I often look at the seal on the dollar bill. It has a pyramid with a triangular eye actually at the top, representing the all-seeing eye of God, and the Latin phrase ``annuit coeptis''. That's Latin meaning He, God, has smiled on our undertaking. When we saddle those dear, sweet children that are alive today and their children with debt because we would not do the right thing, I don't see how God or anybody else can smile on our undertaking. We need to get back to things that bring smiles.

Mr. GOHMERT. If I may reclaim my time briefly, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for being a dear friend and colleague. I heard your comments earlier about the University of Utah. What an extraordinary year they've had. I get the impression nobody has given Utah anything. They have gone through a season undefeated because they worked hard and they earned it. So what we've seen with football teams that get give-aways is that they don't tend to do as well, and they don't have the discipline. Utah certainly has that. Now, if we would just get to a 16-team playoff, then we could give everybody that same opportunity to claim the national championship. I thank my friend from Utah, and I would yield back to my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, this weekend, a very important event will take place at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas. My friend, fellow Texas Aggie, constituent, and citizen soldier Colonel James ``Red'' Brown will be promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. This American hero deserves to have tribute paid here today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives for his outstanding and devoted service to this country. Red's experiences and accomplishments are far too extensive to be able to cover during my limited time, but it is clear he is an example of true patriotism. Newly promoted General Brown received his commission in the United States Army in May of 1980 from the ROTC program at Texas A&M University. He is a graduate of Armor Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, Combined Arms Staff Services School, the Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College. He had served as a company battalion and brigade commander. Colonel Brown, soon to be General Brown, had also served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Civil Military Affairs in Bosnia-Herzegovina during Stabilization Force Seven, as well as Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the 49th Armored Division for 3 years. Just a few of his awards include the Bronze Star for bravery and gallantry as well as the Combat Action Badge awarded in Iraq, three Army commendation medals, several Meritorious Service medals, and the Legion of Merit. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, he commanded the 56th Brigade Combat Team, which was comprised of six battalions with 31 companies and over 4,000 soldiers. When his 56th Brigade was sent to Iraq, it was the largest deployment of troops from the Texas reserve since World War II. It was a great honor for me to be there at Baylor Stadium in December of 2005 to be part of the massive homecoming, welcoming these brave servicemembers when they returned home from Iraq. During their commitment in Iraq, Colonel Brown and his men conducted convoy escort and route security missions throughout the country. As you will recall, that was quite an historic year for Iraqis and for those all over the world who value freedom, because thanks to the heroic efforts of then Colonel Brown and his 56th Brigade and so many others there in the United States military, the Iraqis elected their first true representatives to lead a democratic form of government. Though terrorists tried to instill fear among the locals with prevalent threats of persecution and death, the Iraqis were determined to venture to the polls and to participate in democracy because the hope they were given by the supportive American servicemembers, such as Red, was greater than any fear. I have hanging in my office a photo, very dear to me, of Colonel Brown and of other members of his brigade, proudly holding an Aggie flag that I had taken over when I had visited there. It is framed and signed by all of those in the picture there in Iraq. My friend General Brown has dedicated his life to and has risked it for the service of this great country. There are countless people across the world who will never know the benefits and inspiration they've experienced as a result of General Brown's sacrifice. His sacrifice did not stop while he was on active duty. As a civilian, he is also heavily involved in service to our local area--serving on the board of directors of the Boys and Girls Club of East Texas, the Lindale Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Council of the Lindale First United Methodist Church. He was even elected to the Lindale School Board where he has served also honorably and as president of the board. I know he doesn't do it for recognition or for praise because I know his heart, but General Red Brown deserves to be honored and thanked for his unwavering example of patriotism and selflessness. So congratulations are extended on the promotion to Brigadier General. No one is more deserving of such an honored promotion. May God bless General Red Brown, his wonderful wife, Jane, and his delightful, beautiful children Hannah and Crystal for being such a great blessing to this Nation. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield at this time to the gentleman from New Jersey, who is a dear friend. It's hard to find anybody more insightful in this body. Mr. Scott Garrett from New Jersey.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from New Jersey. Great insights, great points, three great points. Dear friend pastor from Tyler, Paul Powell, said when he was in seminary, he asked one of his preaching professors, How many points should you have in a perfect sermon? And the professor said, I think you ought to have at least one. So I really appreciate the gentleman having three excellent points, and I appreciate the contribution. At this time I would like to yield to someone who has an amazing mind that got him CPA certified, and here he is in Congress trying to help the laws become better and especially on financial matters. So I would like to yield to my friend, Mr. Mike Conaway from Midland, Texas.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. You've made some wonderful points, but I come back to the statement you have in quotes there from our President-elect. I have great hope that he will be able to instill more confidence and more calm to help reassure the economy. But the statement ``Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy'' is more of the same. We were promised change, and even though I'm a Republican and he's a Democrat, I was hoping we would get the change and get away from the government's interfering in everything. We should have done a better job, the Federal Government should have, in monitoring what was being done and spent. But the fact is you go back to the late 1930s, the government just kept getting bigger and bigger. The government kept getting involved more and more. It has continued to expand and grow. And you look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those are governmental creations, and then when they got in trouble in 2002, 2003, fortunately we at that time had a Secretary of the Treasury that was concerned about it and fought here on the Hill to try to get someone to take notice and to start better regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But the government was more interested in continuing to throw money at the issue and not to fix it. Our job, and we have said this before, is to provide for the common defense and then beyond that create a level, fair playing field, make sure everybody's playing fair, punish the cheaters, and let free enterprise work. And more and more and more we are getting the government in running things. And now after the bailout of September, it has grown even more. We have got the government buying interest in banks, buying interest in automakers, creating a car czar, for goodness sakes. We can't design a good pen or an ID card for ourselves here all that easily, much less a car. Good grief. But, anyway, ``Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy.'' Our government is crippling our economy. It did in September. It continues to. It has for many years. The trick is to allow the free enterprise and the entrepreneurship that is so inherent in this society that has made us the greatest Nation, I believe, in the history of the world, and yet that's not change, ``Only government can break the vicious cycles.''

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. We do need to have the Federal watchdog groups like the SEC do a better job of monitoring and seeking out the cheaters and the crooks. And that should have happened with Madoff. It should have happened with many things that have been going on. Some of the problems are right within government itself. And so the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, is exactly right. The government will break the vicious cycle by getting out and by becoming more a policeman, going after people that are cheating, instead of trying to dictate everything. It is killing this country to move so quickly towards socialism. Now, I brought this up in a meeting previously back in September that when the government buys interest in banks, buys interest in stock brokerage firms, car dealers, whatever it is, that's called socialism, and the government becomes a partner and eventually the government takes over the business. That's how socialism works. I was told by a colleague here obviously these things are not socialism because the socialists are not in favor of the September bailout bill. Well, after it passed, I saw one of the socialist leaders on television saying, yes, you know, initially we weren't for the bailout because we didn't think money should be paid to Wall Street and all these other groups, but now that it's past, we realize the government's taking over the financial sector, the insurance company, all these things are great. It's the greatest day for socialism in American history. So it was socialism. It is socialism. I have used the example before, but I learned a great lesson on exactly why socialism never works. Not only did it not work for the New Testament church, and eventually Apostle Paul had to issue an order that if you don't work, you don't eat, it didn't work for the Pilgrims. They had too many people starve to death the first year; so they went to private property and it flourished. But the summer I spent as an exchange student in the Soviet Union allowed a trip out to a collective farm, and the fields looked bad. And I have worked on lots of farms and ranches, and normally you get your work done early, early, before the sun gets to its peak. And all the farmers were sitting in the shade, and it was obvious they hadn't worked so far as midmorning. And so I spoke a little Russian back then, and I said, you know, trying to be as nice as I could, when do you work out in the field? They laughed. One of them said, I make the same number of rubles if I am out there in the field or if I am here in the shade, so I am here in the shade. Many people don't understand why socialism isn't a good idea. It always fails. The only way the Soviet Union made it last for 70 years, they had to have a tyrannical government that killed people or put people in prison if they didn't abide by it or work. Our government, country, had flourished because the government was the policeman and not the dictator. That's what we have got to get back to. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.