[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 15, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6748-H6754]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LET'S FIX AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 60 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to speak here on the
House floor and have that opportunity that was provided by those
willing to show the greatest love, according to Jesus, willing to lay
down their lives for their friends, their countrymen, so that we could
have these freedoms. And when you read the Declaration of Independence,
it talks about we are endowed by a Creator with certain inalienable
rights, and all men were created equal; now, not with equal talents,
not with equal abilities, not with equal money or substances. That was
not the point. In God's eyes, we are equal. In the eyes of the Creator,
we are equal. And so we are supposed to do the best we can with what
we've got.
And as my friend from Missouri was talking about light bulbs, I
couldn't help but scratch my head because here in Washington, we are
told that the most environmentally friendly majority in the history of
the country is in charge now. But I wanted a light bulb that was
incandescent so I can see better, because it takes so dadgum long for
those others with the curl in there to warm up where you can see. And
sometimes, there's a tiny closet there, and I flip the light switch on,
well, I just need to flip it on and off. Well, now I've got to leave
the energy on long
[[Page H6749]]
enough so the bulb warms up to where I can see what's in there. And
it's interesting, you can't find, you will not be provided an
incandescent light bulb. And we read in the past week that the last
incandescent manufacturing plant in the United States proper has now
gone out of business.
So what have we done as the most environmentally conscientious
Congress in history? We have got light bulbs that have mercury in
them--mercury, the substance that does not go away. If you get mercury
in your system, you don't get it out. If you get too much, it's lethal.
It builds up over time. So what are we doing? We are raising the level
of mercury as high as we can get it, this lethal substance, and you
say, what is going on?
{time} 1930
How can we be environmentally friendly when we are forcing everybody
on Capitol Hill to have mercury throughout their offices? It is just
one of those things.
If we are all created equal, and the thing we are endowed with by our
Creator, inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, nobody is guaranteed happiness, but the right to pursue
happiness. Nobody is guaranteed, under our Declaration or under the
Constitution, that everybody is going to share and share alike. That is
called a socialist manifesto: from those according to their ability to
those according to their needs. It is a lovely idea but it has never
worked. It always goes bankrupt because as I found when I was in the
Soviet Union as an exchange student talking to farmers who had not been
out in their field all day on a great day, well, it was midmorning, but
to that point, that was prime time to work. When I spoke a little
Russian back then, I asked, When do you work in the field? They
laughed. One of them said I make the same number of rubles if I am out
there, pointing out in the sun in the field that really looked bad, or
if I am here in the shade. So I am here in the shade. That is why
socialism doesn't work. If you pay somebody the same thing to be
working out in the hot field, sweating and wearing themselves out, and
pay them the same as if they sit in the shade and cut up with their
friends, they are going to be in the shade.
The reason free market systems fail is not because a free market
system doesn't work; it works beautifully. You do need a government to
make sure that everybody plays fairly, not to take away from those who
are able to produce more than others, not to kill the incentive for
people to actually produce, but to provide a level playing field where
everybody can compete equally. That is the job that we are supposed to
have. That is the job of the government.
And we have gotten too busy in this body trying to tell everybody
what they can do, and as the President says share the wealth, spread
the wealth, you kill incentive and you kill productivity. So when you
get right down to it historically, what always brings free market
systems to an end is when a governing authority begins to meddle and
ruin the free market system and start converting it over to a socialist
system. And once a governing authority is able to manipulate the free
market system over into a socialist system where you are trying to
spread the wealth, you are killing incentive and you are creating class
warfare, you are creating all kinds of problems. You are trying to do
the things that this government is doing right now, and then you kill
the free market system. Not because it doesn't work, but because you
have now converted it to a socialist system, which always fails by its
own weight. And then that obviously requires a dictator, somebody who
forces a sharing of the wealth, a killing of incentives across the
board so people do all they can to sit in the shade and not do anything
and not produce and not help out their neighbors because they don't
have to.
So it broke my heart to keep hearing our President talking about the
rich, anybody making over $200,000. He is talking about small business
people. He is talking about people I have had come pleading to me: Stop
destroying what I have spent my life building. I had nothing. I had
nothing, worked 20 hours a day, put what little bit I had at risk and
eventually was able to hire another employee and another employee and
another employee. And finally I have in some cases 20, 30, or 140 in
one case, one man that was talking to me, 140. Now he is down to about
60, I think he said. But you are killing me. You are killing my
business. And you make people hate me because of how hard I worked and
how much I sacrificed to build this small business. And in the process,
you made me put 80 people out of work.
We should not be about class envy. The reason a free market society
works is because there is fairness. When you have a government that is
about fairness, then people compete. Entrepreneurship springs up all
around and people comes up with ideas. It is worth risking what they
have to make things work. That is free enterprise.
And when we have an administration that is so busy stirring up class
envy and trying to get people to hate the people that have come to me
and said, yeah, I have been making over $200,000 a year. I have been
pouring every dime back into my business. It grows and grows, and we
have been able to hire more people. Now I have to lay them off, and you
have got people hating me because they think I'm rich. And now you have
a President that says I don't deserve the same tax rate that everybody
else does. That I deserve to be punished because I took risk and I
sacrificed and I grew my business and I hired people and I was fair to
them and they loved their jobs and they worked hard, and it grew bigger
and better and we had a great product. And now I have a President that
is getting people to hate me and saying I don't deserve to pay the same
rate as other people? I mean, how much must a person despise those kind
of entrepreneurs who have built a business and created out of nothing.
They worked hard with ingenuity and sacrifice, created a thriving
business, how much must a President or an administration despise those
people to say, I am willing not to help the people that I call middle
class if I have to give the same rate to the people that make above
$200,000. I am willing to punish the middle class and not let them have
the same rate as they do now. I am willing to let their tax rates zoom
up with the biggest tax increase in American history come January 1, I
am willing to let that tax rate go up if you try to make me allow those
entrepreneurs who have built a business on their own, if you try to
make me give them the same tax rate as the middle class, because you
see I want to punish them. They have made too much money. They took
risks, they laid it all out there on the line.
One fellow talked about how he didn't even own his own trailer, those
kinds of things. And he built a business, and now our President says he
is rich and he needs to be punished. That is the way you end a free
market system. You spread the wealth evenly from those who have risked
it all and give to those who have been sitting in the shade watching
them work. You kill the free market system. You kill the jobs.
So we have an administration out there saying we are all about jobs,
that is our main focus. But by the way, we are going to push through
this health care bill that the majority of America says don't, don't,
don't, and they pushed it through. And then you see people laid off. So
many people have come to me about family members, themselves, cuts in
pay, laid off because the cost of the health care that was supposed to
go down when this administration ramrodded and crammed this bill down
America's throat without letting people truly understand all that was
in it. You lose your country if it is based on a free market system
when an administration and a Congress tries to make it socialist.
{time} 1940
Now, I realize some people think, oh, Socialist is such a horrible
word. It's really a very nice concept, actually. If you look at it, you
know, we want everyone to share and share alike. Sometimes we're told
that growing up: we want to share and share alike. As a parent, I tried
to make sure that all three of our girls shared and shared alike, but
if one of those children could take what she was given and parlay that
into something even better and more productive, that was hers. Whether
she shared it or not was completely up to her. I would encourage her to
use and develop the talents and what she has been provided.
[[Page H6750]]
It is true, as an old preacher of ours used to say, that there are an
awful lot of people around here who are born on third base and go
through life thinking they hit a triple, and there is an arrogance that
goes with that. Sometimes, if somebody comes from a poor family and has
everything handed to him, then he thinks he has hit a triple because
somebody else placed him on third base.
Either way, we're supposed to never forget that the Founders
believed--and most Americans according to the polls believe--that the
blessings we have are a gift of God; and if we turn our backs on him
long enough, though he is long suffering, patient and full of grace,
eventually, he will say, Okay, you turned your back on me long enough.
Now I turn my back on you, and you disappear. You head to the dustbin
of history.
Now, I wasn't going to bring up this matter. I was very pleased that
the President was talking about the tax holiday concept. The problem is
he is bringing it up over a year and a half later than it was brought
to his attention by me. I told him at the time, Look, you promised
everybody a tax cut. You know, of course you put a $250,000 cap on
income. I don't think it ought to be there.
Moody's did an independent study. They said the tax holiday idea, the
way I read it, increases the 1-year GDP more than any other stimulus
proposal if we pass this stimulus, a tax holiday idea that just said,
you know, for the next 2 or 3 months, every dime you make stays in your
check and does not go to the Federal Government. You get to keep your
income tax in your check. Whether you want to make it 2 or 3 months,
you keep it. If we passed it today and if the President signed it
today, tomorrow they would have that money in their checks. It wouldn't
go to Washington.
At the time, it was going to cost so little money compared to the
money the government was spending. In fact, that's where I got the idea
in 2008. Of course, we had the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, which
was a huge mistake, and I hope our leaders do finally realize that, but
it was a huge mistake. Both sides of the aisle had about half of their
Members buying into it. $700 billion. That could have provided 4 months
of every worker in America getting every dime of their income taxes
back, along with all of their Social Security money for those 2 months,
and it would have let the employers keep the 2 months of matching money
that they normally would have to put in to match what the workers put
in. That would have given businesses a boost, and it would have given
employees this tremendous boost.
We did a little survey of people in our districts: What would you do?
Look at your check and at how much money is going to Washington. What
would you do with it?
Some said, Look, we've got a gas guzzler, and it's worth less than
what we owe for it, so we can't trade it in. We can't get another car.
We're stuck. Yet, if we got 2 months of our own income tax in our
checks, we'd be able to finally buy a good, fuel-efficient car. We'd be
able to save money on gas in the future.
The truth is that GM and Chrysler wouldn't have needed to have been
bailed out because people would have been out there buying cars.
Actually, the idea for the tax holiday, when I had it in 2008, came
from seeing that $700 billion for the Wall Street bailout and then
hearing here in Washington that, between the Federal Reserve and the
things this government was going to do, it would probably end up
costing between $3 trillion and $9 trillion just to try to get the
economy going again. That's when I inquired: How much do we anticipate
will be paid for the whole year of 2008 in Federal personal income tax?
It was around $1.21 trillion. $1.21 trillion and $3 trillion to $9
trillion over here, maybe more. I like the $1.21 trillion. It's at
least three to 10 times cheaper, and it's people keeping their own
money that they've earned. Then you wouldn't have needed all the
bailouts, and everybody could have kept all of their income taxes for a
whole year.
I don't like a government's not paying its bills as it goes along.
It's not a good idea, but to say no personal income tax for a year when
that is so much cheaper than what the Bush administration pushed with
the $700 billion bailout, with the $800 billion that is now a $900
billion porkulus bill, from January of 2009 under President Obama, and
with the $400 billion land omnibus bill the following week--all these
stimulus packages, so-called--man, it would have been so much cheaper
to have said, People, just keep all of your income taxes for a year.
Well, there weren't that many people here on Capitol Hill who felt
like they could politically risk signing onto a full year of no income
tax. Especially after January when we had the $800 billion or the $900
billion, my position was you could take the $800 billion stimulus
package and what was left of the original $700 billion Wall Street
bailout and pay for a whole year of no income taxes being paid. Just
take the money from those stimulus packages and bailouts and use those
to let everybody keep their own income taxes for a year.
John Shadegg was one. He loved the idea of having a whole year of no
income tax. Boy, you talk about a stimulated economy. People would have
been buying cars. They would have been eating out. They would have been
buying products, buying new homes. Even with 2 months of people's own
income taxes, Newt Gingrich's folks ran the numbers for me. He was very
helpful. As I recall, an average family, just an average household in
America, in just 2 months, was going to have around $5,000 or so of
extra money. Some people said, You know, we got behind on our mortgages
when gasoline got to $4 a gallon the year before, and we just have not
been able to catch up; but you let us have all of our income taxes for
a couple of months, we'll catch up, and then you won't have to do all
of these ridiculous government programs to try and save people's
mortgages.
There are other things that need to be done, but I brought this up
when I met the President back when he very first came to our Republican
Conference, which was held down in the basement here in the Capitol. I
said, Look, I don't care who gets the credit. You can put your name on
it. Do it. Moody's says it will help the GDP more in one year than any
proposal that has been proposed. Even our own leadership's proposal
wasn't going to do that much good in one year in the Republican Party.
I don't care who gets the credit.
I wouldn't have minded if he had taken the idea back then and had
used it, but he waited over a year and a half and then started
describing, virtually almost verbatim, the way I described it over a
year and a half ago and then in some of the same speeches said, But you
know what? The Republicans don't have any good ideas. Well, I don't
care that somebody's taking credit. The old saying goes--Reagan said it
often--it's amazing what you can get done here in Washington if you
don't mind who gets the credit.
{time} 1950
So I don't mind other people taking credit for the idea. I do mind
when it's followed or even preceded by the words, ``But Republicans
don't have one good idea.'' I think we need to pray for the President's
memory. I know the pressure is great. I know it's an awesome
responsibility. It's easy to forget things. Boy, do I know that. My
wife will sure tell you that. It's easy to forget things. But before
you go alleging that Republicans have no good ideas, think for a moment
where you got the idea you're proposing. That's what I would offer, Mr.
Speaker. And we keep hearing the President and others here on the floor
saying that Republicans have not one good idea. They're the Party of
No. No good ideas. None at all.
None at all? We need to pray for people's hearing, because there are
a lot of fantastic proposals that are being tossed out there that would
be wonderful. We do need major tax reform. I'll never forget how
depressed I was after I left the Republican annual retreat in early
2006. I had been elected, sworn in in January of 2005, and started
Congress with all kinds of hopes and dreams of making the country a
better place. A year later we're told, look, there's a tiny chance we
might not have the majority next year. It's possible we could lose. We
don't think it will happen. We know we had talked about major tax
reform this year, but instead we're going to just try to get through
this year, not do anything big that will make people mad one way or the
other, keep the majority next November, and then we'll come back in
[[Page H6751]]
January 2007 and do the major stuff like major tax reform.
Well, we've lost a lot of people who have been defeated since then,
because America wants to see us keep our promises. There have been a
lot of promises made by this administration, this majority, of things
that were going to be done. Even on the crap-and-trade bill that passed
here last year, the promises were made over and over: Oh, no, this bill
is not going to cost jobs. It's going to create jobs. Create green
jobs. After seeing what the people in charge have done in taking away
incandescent light bulbs, it makes me wonder, are those green jobs
going to have to carry around mercury, too, or what?
The American people are letting it be known, they're not happy with
people not keeping their promises here. Actually the truth is, I have a
real fear as a Republican that we only get the majority back one more
time in my lifetime and if we do not keep our word this time, we'll
never get it back again in my lifetime.
There are some great ideas. There are things that should be done.
We've talked about balanced budgets for years. And there are some in
the prior administration that equated compassion with paying money.
There are an awful lot of people in the current administration that
equate compassion with giving away somebody else's money. But that's
not compassion. That's hurting free enterprise, killing incentive,
killing jobs. And when you take away somebody's job, you have hurt
them. Psychologists say that's one of the most devastating blows to a
person mentally, emotionally, to lose a job. Losing a spouse is up
there. Losing a child is right up at the top. But losing a job is one
of the most devastating things that can happen. And here we keep doing
things over and over.
The crap-and-trade bill is still hanging out there. The rumors are
there could be a lame duck session and people that have lost their
seats, who were afraid to vote for it before in the House or Senate
will vote for it in a lame duck session because they've already been
voted out, they've got nothing to lose, and maybe hoping if they vote
for it in November or December, maybe the administration will give them
a job if they really cater to them and help them do that. That would be
disastrous. But if you go back and read the crap-and-trade bill, as I
did, you find out that back there it seemed like--and I read from it,
standing right over there--around page 900 and something, there was a
fund that was created in the bill that would reimburse people or give
them a little allowance for those people who lost their jobs as a
result of that bill being passed.
Now I know my friends across the aisle who stood up over and over and
said, no, this isn't going to cost jobs, this is going to create green
jobs, they obviously had not read the bill because I know them well
enough to know, they wouldn't have stood up and intentionally lied.
They wouldn't have done that. It's just that they had not read the bill
so they were not aware that whoever's staffer or special interest group
wrote that bill, they knew people would lose their jobs and that's why
they were creating a fund in the bill to give an allowance to people
that lost their jobs as a result of the bill. And as I pointed out
then, the good news, I guess, to those that voted for that bill is that
if it becomes law, no doubt in my mind, a lot of the people that voted
for that bill will lose their job as a result of voting for that bill,
and they've got an argument that they're entitled to funds from the
bill for losing their job as a result of the bill. So they may have
created a fund that will help them out.
But we should have a balanced budget amendment, and it's a shame on
the Republicans for not getting that done when we had the White House,
the House and the Senate. We should have gotten it done. Shame on the
Republicans for in the last administration when we had the majority
agreeing to tax cuts that we knew would stimulate the economy and but
for those tax cuts we would have gone into a massive depression. But
the economy was stimulated, and we brought more money into the Federal
Treasury than had ever been brought into the Treasury; but the problem
is we spent more than had ever been spent in history--up until, of
course, this administration. And whereas I can remember being over here
on this side and hearing colleagues beat up on Republicans because we
were in the majority and to have a $160 billion deficit was
unthinkable, it was just so irresponsible--until, of course, the Obama
administration, the Democratic majority, and then actually 10 times
that much of a deficit is okay. It was not okay at $160 billion and
it's certainly not okay at 10 times that.
People in the American public were promised change, and yet what they
got was not really change; they got 10 times more of what they had
before. I don't know why President Bush is being demonized, because
this administration and this Congress is pushing 10 times more of
exactly what the prior administration did. So instead of condemning the
Bush administration and the Republican majority, they ought to be
rightfully saying, you know what, we thought you had a good idea when
you ran up a $160 billion deficit, that was such a good idea, we have
gone 10 times that, and we're really running up a deficit now.
Shame on Republicans when we had the chance in 2005 and President
Bush ran on shoring up Social Security. Now there was all kinds of
discussion of privatization; what does it mean, what is it really going
to do? And by September of '05, it was obvious the President's
political capital was gone and what he had hoped to do would not be
done. But I still had hope, because I knew what had been done with the
Texas employment retirement system. They took real money from people's
checks that were supposed to go toward retirement and put it in a
retirement account. Real money in a real retirement account. Now that
was invested and it got hit pretty hard after 9/11. It got hit very
hard after ``Chicken Little'' Paulson ran around and said the financial
sky was falling if we didn't give him the $700 billion slush fund he
wanted, and so the market fell 777 points in one day, a self-fulfilling
prophecy, and the money lost by everybody that had anything invested.
There was one Republican that I went to because he was so well
respected for his business and financial mind, and I said, Look, I've
talked to a lot of Republicans and I've talked to some Democrats.
Something we could get through here even in September of '05 was a bill
that had one thing in it that just said, Social Security tax money for
the first time in the history of Social Security, since its inception
in the late 1930s, will require that that Social Security tax money be
put into the Social Security trust fund.
{time} 2000
I don't want to hear any ridiculous talk about lock box. There's
never been one. I want one. I want there to be Social Security tax
money put into the Social Security Trust Fund and stop putting IOUs in
there, markers that are noninterest bearing, and we have to borrow 42
cents out of ever dollar that we spend. Stop it already.
Now, to put the Social Security tax money into the Social Security
Trust Fund will require us to actually make some tough calls. And since
this majority condemned us all the time for spending too much money,
then I think a good idea would be to go back to the budget of 2006. I
know some are talking about 2008. I think it ought to be 2006. We'll go
back to that budget. And I think that would help us maybe take care of
the issue and get us a good start of being able to put all of the
Social Security tax money into the Social Security Trust Fund.
Now, the Republican is so brilliant he told me that we could never do
that. I was shocked. Why not? Because the government would probably buy
bonds with it. They'd be the biggest bondholder. We could never allow
that to happen. Well, not really. We could create a treasury note
that's interest bearing. So it's not risky. It doesn't put the Social
Security Trust Fund at risk. That money makes interest. And it's there,
and we stop having a Ponzi scheme. A very simple idea, and a Republican
has proposed it. But when we were in the majority, our leadership
didn't go for it, but I hope and pray they will if we get the majority
again.
Health care. Boy, we've seen what the ObamaCare bill has done to
health care. And even though people were promised there would be no
rationing, then we put a doctor in charge of it
[[Page H6752]]
who's talked about, as I recall, not whether there would be rationing
but when and who would be rationed. So all of the promises about no
rationing, apparently those were not true. And it could be going back
to the problem I alluded to earlier. We need to pray for the
President's memory so he can remember those things that were promised.
Now, another Republican idea--and I think everybody on this side of
the aisle has signed on to it, is in support of it, is an energy bill,
an energy plan that says use what we've got. Make sure that when coal
is used that it doesn't harm the environment. Put scrubbers on there to
make sure that it goes in the environment clean and we don't harm the
environment. We can do that.
Use uranium. Use nuclear facilities like we do with our ships and our
submarines. It works. That's why we have sailors who are able to go
underwater on submarines and stay submerged for 6 months. I was told by
some of my friends from A&M that went in the Navy and were on subs
underwater 6 months at a time. And he said, You know why we have to
come up every 6 months? I said, I assume, to refuel.
Oh, no. Those submarines could stay underwater just on and on and on.
We have to come up so that the crew doesn't go crazy, because the
nuclear subs could just stay under there as long as they needed to from
a practical standpoint.
But there's a source. Most of America didn't notice when our
committee voted to put the second-largest source of uranium in this
country off limits. People in Louisiana, Republicans and Democrats
alike, have been screaming out, You are doing more damage to our State
with the moratorium on gulf drilling than the oil spill did.
And when you hurt an economy and you put people out of work,
tragically they don't care about the environment. They're just trying
to survive. The only countries that can really do much about the
environment are those who have such a prolific economy that they can
take care of it. But when you have people out of work and they're just
living hand to mouth and they're trying to get by, they don't care
about the environment because their economy doesn't allow it.
Now, I and, as far as I know, everybody on this side of the aisle
wants to develop alternative energy sources. But what a great idea, and
it's been proposed, and we pushed it over and over. Instead of raising
taxes and--as the President's promise would happen when he was running
for office--having energy prices skyrocket if we use coal to make
power, instead of doing those things--and as one 80-something-year-old
lady told me from east Texas, I was born and raised in a house with no
electricity. We had a wood-burning stove. And now the price of energy
has gotten so high, I'm going to have to let it go. I can't pay for it.
And it looks like I may end up going out of this world the way I came
in, in a home with a wood-burning stove and nothing else, no other
power, because people are wanting the prices to skyrocket. And that
poor woman, not to be able to pay for her energy bill. No, that's no
good way to do it.
God bless this country with more natural resources than any other
country in the world. Yeah, the Middle East, they may have more oil
with things that are being found around the world, who knows. But we
have massive amounts of natural gas, maybe the most coal in the world.
We've got nuclear power. We've got wind power. We've got solar. We've
got all kinds of things, so many things that can be harnessed.
But if you use the energy with which we have been blessed and
designate--I don't care if it's 25, 50 percent of the royalty that we
get back from the energy or from the mining or whatever it is,
designate that that will all be used to find and research and develop
alternative energy sources, so that when we run out--it will be well
before we run out. We've got over 100 years of natural gas that's been
found and finding more all the time. Before we run out, we'll be able
to convert to alternative energy without raising anybody's taxes,
without making any 80-year-old women living alone have to go without
power, keep the power prices down. That's a Republican solution. And I
have friends on the other side of the aisle over here that would sign
on to that if their Speaker wouldn't punish them for doing so.
Another idea. I know it's not popular with the administration, but we
call it the U.N. Voting Accountability Act. Very simple. It says, in
essence, recognize the fact, first of all, that every country is
sovereign. You can make your own decisions. We're not going to tell you
what to do in your country. We shouldn't. But any country that votes
against the United States' position in the U.N. more than half the
time, the following year will get no financial assistance from us.
As I've said before, you don't have to pay people to hate you.
They'll do it for free. And there are some countries that we keep
pouring cash into thinking they'll end up loving us because we'll buy
it. Not only do they not love us, they have even greater contempt
because they know we know they don't like us and yet we're just pouring
money into them. It makes them not only not like us; it makes them have
no respect at all for us. It's so unnecessary.
Something that should have been passed in 2006 when we had the
majority and we had the chance and some of the people that said they
would not let it go through are no longer here--some are--it's a zero-
baseline budget bill. It just says there are no automatic increases in
any Federal departments' budgets. There's a Republican solution for
you. If you want your budget increased in the Federal Government, you
have to come justify it, and we ought to put those budgets online where
people can watch them like--I think the President put it this way, that
he was going to go through the budget line by line with a fine-tooth
comb. He was going to put Joe Biden in charge of doing that, too. They
were going to get rid of everything that was waste.
{time} 2010
Well, that hasn't happened yet. Since he is an honest man, I am sure
it will eventually happen. But it sure hasn't happened yet. But it
would sure happen if you let Americans see every Federal department's
budget, how they were spending their money, put it up online, make them
put those purchases online the way Congress is now doing. There would
be people watching all right.
And if we had a tax holiday and people saw for a couple months how
much money they were actually sending to Washington, they would demand
it. And they would be watching to see how every Federal department was
spending money.
And hey, I got another one for you. This is a Republican proposal
from this Republican. Our leaders have not endorsed this. I am just
tossing this out. But you know, we had to come in here in August, it
cost an awful lot of money to turn all the lights back on, do
everything to go back into session, but we did just so that we could
get $10 billion extra to go to the Department of Education to help so-
called teachers. Well, it turns out across America only about 50
percent of all the public education employees are teachers.
Well, if you did away with the Department of Education here in
Washington and kept that, $68 billion I believe is what we are spending
this year, and divided it among the less than 14,000 independent school
districts in America, I am open to a good formula how to do that, just
average it would be between $5 million and $6 million dollars for every
school district in America. Most school districts could really use that
money. And boy, that would help education. You wouldn't need near as
many bureaucrats because there wouldn't be as many decrees from on high
here, Mount Olympus here in Washington. The local school districts
would be able to comply with the Constitution, because the Constitution
does not enumerate education as a power in the Constitution, which
under the 10th Amendment means it's reserved to the States and to the
people, the local folks.
Another idea--they say we've got none--another idea, after having
been to China years ago and having talked to CEOs about why you went.
The corporate tax here is 35 percent. You lump on some of the State
income taxes, you lump on local property taxes, all of the taxes, some
of them are paying 40 percent, 50 percent in tax for their companies,
competing with countries like
[[Page H6753]]
China that don't exceed 17 percent. And if they are a big enough
company moving over from anywhere in the U.S. to China, they'll cut you
a deal, no income tax for a while, because they get it.
If we dropped our corporate tax to 12 percent, I have had CEOs with
major companies say we would be rebuilding a plant in the U.S. almost
immediately when we went to a 12 percent corporate tax. And what would
happen? More and more people would go back to work, and more and more
people would be able to pay their taxes. And more and more revenue
would come into the Federal Treasury. And then we would be able to buy
more and more of those mercury lights that are going to create such a
problem for the environment.
There are a lot of very good solutions. And so I don't mind somebody
taking my idea. I love it. I think it's the highest form of flattery.
But I don't appreciate it when it's followed up with a comment that we
have no ideas, no solutions. We've got a lot of them. We just aren't
allowed to make amendments on the floor to get those to the floor where
they could pass.
I want to finish tonight with a tribute. It is a great honor for me
to recognize one of America's greatest songwriters in our Nation's
history, who turned 70 years of age this week. He is a man to whom we
are indebted for many of the songs that lifted us, especially those of
us who are baby boomers, from our low points because his songs spoke
our feelings. They spoke our despondence, our hopes, our joy, and
especially the joy that comes from loving other people.
I had not met Paul Williams until recent years, but I knew the man
well through his lyrics. I have known the man through his lyrics for
decades. The hauntingly clear and comforting voice of Karen Carpenter
shared some of his songs and expressed our hearts that we had only just
begun to live. White lace and promises. A kiss for luck and we're on
our way.
For those of us who have loved, he expressed for us to the one we
love that we won't last a day without you. And that all we needed was
just an old-fashioned love song coming down in three-part harmony, one
I am sure they wrote for you and me. Or that we had so much in common
because we were all building a home for the family of man.
Paul Williams expressed for us through the voice of Barbra Streisand
that wonderful love could be soft as an easy chair, love fresh as the
morning air, one love that is shared by two, I have found with you.
Like a rose, under the April snow, I was always certain love
would grow. Love, ageless and evergreen, seldom seen by two.
Even though Paul had not yet recognized that he had a drinking
problem, he forecast years down the road as a recovering alcoholic in
that song with the words every day a beginning. Paul has now done that
for over 20 years, as he has made each day a beginning. He knew for
many of us that rainy days and Mondays always get us down. And some
days it truly did feel that it was, through Helen Reddy's voice, you
and me against the world. Sometimes it feels like you and me against
the world. When others turn their back and walk away, we could always
count on you to say just the right thing, Paul Williams. But for all
the times we cried, you always felt the odds were on our side, and we
found consolation in that.
Paul Williams asked the ongoing question through the voice of Kermit
the Frog as to why are there so many songs about rainbows? And what's
on the other side? Well, someday we'll find it, the rainbow connection,
because Paul is a lover, a dreamer like me.
Paul, of course, is widely considered one of our most prolific,
talented, creative singer-songwriters. He has won awards called Oscar,
Grammy, and Golden Globe on multiple occasions, and was nominated for
these awards--more than 20 times he has been nominated over the span of
his illustrious musical career. Even though he also wrote the theme for
``The Love Boat,'' he nonetheless is deeply loved by so many like me
who carry his lyrics in our hearts for life.
As a further attestation of his talent and wide-ranging artistic
scope and appeal, his songs have been recorded by a diverse array of
our most famous classic and modern musicians such as Elvis, Frank
Sinatra, Willie Nelson, Ella Fitzgerald, Ray Charles, Tony Bennett,
Sara Vaughan, Luther Vandross, R.E.M., and Jason Mraz, among so many
others, in addition to the ones I mentioned already tonight. But this
House has time restraints, so there is not enough time to mention all
of them.
But additionally, Paul has appeared as an actor in many movies and
has been a favorite on television shows. He was one of the most
frequent guests on Johnny Carson's ``Tonight Show.'' I used to love to
watch him. Always he had the most contagious sense of humor that caused
viewers instantly to smile when he was introduced as a guest, because
you just knew you were going to laugh. You always knew you were going
to laugh with him in the room.
On one such occasion he was a guest on ``The Tonight Show'' with Burt
Reynolds. The chemistry was extraordinary and hilarious. It was only
days later when Burt Reynolds called Paul, impressed with how much fun
they had had together. He wanted to get with Paul, with Johnny Carson's
beloved writer Pat McCormick, plus a few other favorites like Sally
Field, Jackie Gleason, and Jerry Reeves and others and make a movie.
They did. And the fun they had making that movie came across from the
screen to the audience, which made it one of the most successful movies
in history.
{time} 2020
It was called ``Smokey and the Bandit.''
There were other Smokey sequels, but that first one was the best.
Paul said, Billy Bob Thornton told him that in the South ``Smokey and
the Bandit'' is not considered a movie, it's considered a documentary.
Though some identify him in the movies as the short guy, I personally
know him to be a full 10 feet tall.
In recognition of Paul's significant and long-lasting musical impact,
he was inducted in 2001 into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, and he is
currently serving as the president and chairman of the board of the
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, ASCAP.
But Paul will tell you that having hit rock bottom through his
drinking, God blessed him even still, He lifted him and gave him new
life with an even more infectious joy. He became a Christian and
although some alcoholics fear that they will not be nearly as creative
without drinking, Paul showed that's absolutely not the case.
Like virtually all creative geniuses, though, he has known times when
he had trouble writing. On one such occasion he went to Nashville,
collaborated and out came one of the most touching and autobiographical
songs which became a huge hit for Diamond Rio. The words reflected a
part of his own struggle with alcoholism and his recovery, though the
woman who made him face the truth was not waiting for him when he
completely sobered up and dried out. The words say it better than I
can:
``I said, Hello, I think I am broken, and though I was only jokin',
you took me by surprise when you agreed. I was trying to be clever, for
the life of me I never guessed how far a simple truth would lead. You
knew all my lines; you knew all my tricks; you knew how to heal that
thing no medicine can fix. And I bless the day I met you, and I thank
God that He let you lay beside me for a moment that lives on. And the
good news is I'm better for the time we spent together. The bad news is
you're gone.
``Looking back it's still surprising, I was sinking; you were rising,
and with a look you caught me in mid-air. Now I know God has His
reasons, but sometimes it's hard to see them when I awake and find that
you're not there.
``You found hope in hopeless; and you made crazy sane, you became the
missing link that helped me break my chains. And I bless the day I met
you, and I thank God that He let you lay beside me for a moment that
lives on. And the good news is I'm better for the time we spent
together. The bad news is you're gone.''
And Paul knows, however, that all things work together for good for
those who love God and are called according to His purpose. But that
doesn't mean that everything is good; it's certainly not. But
thankfully things have worked out so that Paul has been a gift
[[Page H6754]]
to this planet and to the millions that he has touched.
Paul has a true driving passion for his family, for his work as a
drug rehabilitation counselor with Musicians' Assistance Program, a
nonprofit program created by and for the benefit of musicians to help
them overcome their substance abuse issues. In 1989 Paul obtained his
certification as a drug rehabilitation counselor from UCLA and has for
the last 20 years been actively imparting the lessons to others that he
had to learn himself the hard way.
He has been given a number of awards for his humanitarian efforts and
remains a shining example of someone who has used fame not for self-
centered ends but to promote the well-being of others. He is indeed
devoted to his church, to the Lord, and just as I found out after I got
dumped in college by my girlfriend, God had something else waiting that
was supposed to have been all along.
One of the great mysteries in this world, though, is that it is only
after a broken heart so often that our hearts are stretched enough and
then mend even bigger with a greater capacity for loving others. And so
it was with Paul. Subsequently he met and married Mariana. They are
happily married and have the deepest love for and pride in their
wonderful family.
Though he is a Democrat by political affiliation, he, just as Jesus
did, can mingle and feel right at home even with the least of these,
like me. His favorite anonymous quote, apparently he is one we can all
take to heart with our interactions with one another, ``Care deeply;
give freely; think kindly; act gently; and be at peace with the
world.''
One of my favorite quotes is: ``Before the rising sun we fly; so many
roads to choose, we start out walking and learn to run. We've only just
begun.''
We are so grateful that the good Lord led Paul down a road of
expressing what we felt, though Paul expressed it in a way we never
could. But we can certainly sing, even though some of us should do so
only privately.
But it is also true, as Paul wrote, ``Time won't change the meaning
of one love.'' And though 70 years of age this week, Paul Williams is
ageless and ever, ever green.
Here in the Congressional Record for all the world to read, as long
as there is a United States, it will ever be recorded that Paul
Williams lived, laughed, loved, and was immensely helpful to those
around him doing the same thing; and hopefully he will be around the
rest of my life to add the music to my life.
And, yes, to borrow from another of his songs: ``As a traveling boy,
Paul was only passing through, but we will always think of you.''
God bless you, Paul, for blessing us. Happy birthday.
I yield back.
____________________