[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6545-H6548]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE PRESIDENT'S AMERICAN JOBS ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today, and I certainly
appreciate my friends enlightening the Chamber and those that may be
prone to listening.
I want to add a little bit to the enlightenment, as we've seen that
the President is out there. And here is an article from the AP, dated
October 4, saying that President Barack Obama is criticizing House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor for saying the President's $447 billion
jobs bill will not get a vote in its entirety in the Republican-led
House. The President singled out Mr. Cantor. According to the article,
it says, `` `I'd like Mr. Cantor to come down here to Dallas and
explain what in this jobs bill he doesn't believe in,' Obama said in
remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday at a Texas community college.''
And as we know, the President would have been reading those remarks,
because he wouldn't want to stray far from the teleprompter with
remarks. We've seen what happens on those occasions, and it isn't
pretty.
The article goes on:
``Three weeks after Obama sent the legislation to Congress, the
proposal has run into resistance from Republicans and even some
Democrats.''
See, the article's not quite accurate on that, because we know that
the President came in here, in this very body after he demanded to come
speak, which requires an invitation. You can't just come speak on the
House floor unless you're recognized by the Speaker, you're a Member of
the House, or if the House votes to allow someone to come in who's not
a Member.
Some people are surprised when they come in, Mr. Speaker, that the
President's not up there where you are, but
[[Page H6546]]
the rules make it very clear. This is the people's House. The President
can only come, just like any other leader that's invited, for instance,
Prime Minister Netanyahu. They speak from the second podium because
they're invited guests.
Well, now, it's a little bit rude to demand to come speak in
someone's house, and then you come in there and lecture them and you
state things like repeatedly saying, You've got to pass this bill right
away, right now; pass this bill, this bill, and it turns out you didn't
even have a bill. You had the gall to come in here and demand we pass a
bill and you haven't even got a bill?
And then on Friday, the President hit the campaign trail. Well, maybe
not the campaign trail, but whatever you want to call it. He was out
there spending millions and millions and millions of dollars to go to
different places around the country and demand we pass this bill. Tell
Congress, pass my bill, and he didn't have a bill.
Saturday, Sunday, he's out there saying, Pass my bill right now, pass
it right away. People, go to work immediately. Never mind that he had
to take a vacation before he could get around to producing a bill that
was that important. Never mind that he's going around telling
everybody, We should make Congress pass a bill that doesn't exist.
{time} 1620
On Monday, I was a little bothered we were being condemned for not
passing a bill that didn't exist. So we were pushing to try to get a
copy of this phantom bill. Late that afternoon, we finally got a copy
emailed. I printed it out that Monday night at around 11 p.m., and I
started going through the President's bill.
Now, by Wednesday, when no bill was filed and when the President was
still running around spending millions of taxpayer dollars, condemning
Congress for not passing his bill when he was so busy out there telling
people to make Congress ``pass my bill,'' he forgot to have anybody
file the bill. For 6 days, we were condemned here in this Chamber for
not passing the President's bill. He was so busy condemning Congress
for not passing his bill that he forgot to ask somebody to file it for
him.
By Wednesday, I got tired of being condemned for not passing the
American Jobs Act, so I filed an American Jobs Act. Mine's two pages.
It's H.R. 2911. It would create more jobs in America than anything that
the President has ever even talked about because, though you have
businessmen who are very successful, like Donald Trump, saying we ought
to slap a 25 percent tariff on everything we buy from China, that
starts a trade war. I'm sure we don't win. I don't think China wins. I
don't think anybody wins. It would be messy. China owns so much of our
debt, unfortunately, that it's probably not a smart move right now
until we get out from under this debt.
The Bible talks very clearly about what happens when you allow
somebody to own your debt. Basically, you become a slave to them. So
I'm looking forward to the day we don't owe China and we don't owe
foreign countries, the day we get out of debt because we balance our
budget; and it looks like it will take a balanced budget amendment to
do that.
In the meantime, there is no treaty that would be violated, no trade
agreement, no court order anywhere in the world that would prevent us
from eliminating the 35 percent tariff that we put on all American-made
goods before they're able to sell them abroad. It's called a 35 percent
corporate tax, the largest corporate tax in the world. It's the number
one reason that I've heard from CEOs as to why they moved their
businesses to other countries.
So my two-page bill, the American Jobs Act--and I do appreciate the
President promoting the American Jobs Act; that's my bill--reduces the
35 percent corporate tax to zero. Now, there are some people who never
really got economics, and they don't understand the way the real world
works. They think the real world works like CBO's archaic rules that
say you can't take actual historic precedent to figure out what effect
a bill will have.
Never mind even if the same result always occurs after a certain
thing is done, you can't consider that because the 1974 liberal
Congress that ran us out of Vietnam and left all our allies there to be
killed by our enemies put in the rules for CBO to score bills. So you
don't get a fair look at what really happens with CBO rules, and there
are some people who think those rules are the way you have to look at
things. The fact is, if you reduced the corporate tax, especially to
zero, jobs would come flooding back into America.
Now, I would think unions would love this bill. If you really want
union jobs back in America; if you're really willing to say, you know
what, forget this business about America being nothing but a service
economy, we really want manufacturing jobs back, then eliminate the 35
percent insidious tariff we put on American-made goods before they can
be sold abroad.
As I've said here on the floor, I'm willing to negotiate, to be
bipartisan. If the President can't bring himself to get to zero, then
let's negotiate somewhere in between. We could do that. Herman Cain is
talking about 9 percent. But then we have the President out there
demanding that we pass his bill. Then he's saying things about it that
simply are not factual, not factual at all. I know, because I read the
bill. I'm very irritated with people who think the President's lying
about his bill, because I believe I can prove he's not lying about his
bill. He doesn't know what's in his bill. You can't lie about something
you don't know, and I believe I can prove the President is not a liar.
Absolutely not.
He gave that speech in here on Thursday night. The next day, he's on
the road condemning Congress for not passing his bill. There was no
bill yet. Saturday, he's on the road condemning Congress for not
passing his bill. There's no bill. He was still keeping that up all day
Monday. Well, it wasn't until Monday that his bill got finished.
There's no way he could keep giving those speeches every single day all
over the country and have had the 6 or 7 hours I did between 11 p.m. to
5 or 6 a.m.--I've said five, but I was still going awhile--but at least
the 6 hours that I took the night the bill came out to go through his
bill. He hadn't had that time. There's no way the President could work
that 6-hour schedule, or time in his schedule, to go through the bill
like I did. There's no way to condemn the President for not knowing
what's in his bill when he hasn't had time, when he's been too busy
condemning Congress for not passing it. How could he know what was in
it?
Then today, of course, we see the President's knocking the GOP
leadership, and he's telling people on the campaign trail--let's see.
This is an article from Yahoo! News, by Chris Moody:
President Obama is in Dallas today, urging Americans who
support the American Jobs Act to demand that Congress pass it
already.
Though it's been nearly a month since he laid out this
plan, House Republicans haven't acted to pass it, and House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor is out there actually bragging
that they won't even put the jobs package up for a vote--
ever.
It's not clear which part of the bill they now object to--
building roads, hiring teachers, getting veterans back to
work. They're willing to block the American Jobs Act, and
they think you won't do anything about it.
Apparently, those are the President's words, according to the
article, the best I understand this. Oh, this was the President's
reelection campaign that sent out an email blasting House Republicans
for not voting on the proposal.
It's just been in the last hour, while the President is condemning
Republicans for not passing his bill, that Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, tried to force a vote on the
President's plan in the upper Chamber on Tuesday afternoon; but Reid
used a procedural tactic to block the bill from coming to the floor. He
called the Republicans' insistence on a vote a ``publicity stunt.'' So
the President hasn't had time to read the bill. He hasn't had time to
find out who was really blocking his bill. Well, it turns out it's
really Harry Reid in the Senate.
Based on the things the President has said, I know he hasn't read
this, because I know the President would not be dishonest. When he's
out there and has repeatedly said that we're going to make millionaires
and billionaires pay their fair share, I know he wouldn't go out there
and say that if he knew the
[[Page H6547]]
truth about what was in his bill, because in his bill at pages 134 and
135, it gives the definition of who's rich and who's going to get it
socked to him.
The President has been saying repeatedly ``millionaire and
billionaire''; but bless his heart, if he had time to read the bill--
and I hope somebody will carve out some time for him to do that. I know
his speech schedule out there of condemning Congress has kept him tied
up--but if they could work in some time for him to read his own bill
and just stop condemning Congress for just a little bit and if he has
enough time to get to page 135, he'll find out that the people he's
going after that he says are millionaires and billionaires in his
bill--and it's not a jobs bill.
{time} 1630
Since I have used the name that the President was originally
plugging, I think his bill would be better called ``the saving Obama's
job bill.''
But that may not be fair either because if people really find out
what's in this bill, I don't think they would be very happy. I'm not
sure it saves his job.
But he defines millionaire and billionaire--right here on page 135--
as any taxpayer whose adjusted gross income is above $125,000 in the
case of a married filing separately return, and that's $250,000 in the
case of a joint return, married filing jointly.
And here again this may be something nice he's throwing out for gay
folks that are living together, so he can tell them actually you're
better off not getting married, because there's some marriage penalty
here. If you're the head of a single household, you've got an exemption
of $225,000; all other cases, $200,000.
So it really penalizes married individuals and, apparently, according
to this bill, a millionaire or a billionaire is somebody who makes
$125,000.
But if you think this is good news, if you want to get divorced, it
is good news for you because if you're married and you're filing a
joint return, you get a $250,000 exemption. Or if you're married and
filing singly, you get a $125,000 exemption. The good news is, if
you're thinking about divorce, you can actually get divorced and have a
$75,000 to $100,000 higher exemption if you'll just get divorced, and
you can even live together. This is the President's proposal: live
together and you get a whole lot more of an exemption than if you're
married.
Now, of course, the Founders, they all understood marriage to be
between a man and a woman, and that's the way the history of the
country has been. Study after study has shown that the odds are
children will be better adjusted if they have the two-parent home, the
traditional two-parent home. Obviously, there's some homes that aren't
good and children are not well served there. But this President, by
virtue of the power as the old saying, the power to tax, the power to
destroy, takes a shot at traditional, conventional marriage.
Then there is an additional AMT amount. That's subsection c, because
if you are a millionaire or a billionaire, which means you make more
than $125,000 and you're married, there is an extra penalty for you
that the President's got waiting for you in his so-called jobs bill.
I don't know if he's aware--I just don't see how he could be because
he's been so busy out making speeches everywhere. But if you were to
look, Mr. Speaker, at the stuff in here, well, he says it's about jobs;
so I bet the President does not know that here at page 75, we've got a
new Federal entity, although it's defined on page 76 as a private,
nonprofit corporation, called the Public Safety Broadband Corporation,
because this President believes there is danger in people having
broadband in their home.
Can you really trust the American people? It has to be the theme of
this part of the President's so-called jobs bill. Apparently, he thinks
there's a public safety threat in broadband that people have coming
into their home and business. So he's created this private, nonprofit
corporation.
You might say, well, good, thank goodness it's not government; it's a
private nonprofit corporation that will control everybody's broadband.
Good news, is it?
Because when you look down at section 285, halfway down page 76, you
see who's on the board of directors. And even though it's a private,
nonprofit corporation, the board of directors is comprised of--the
Federal members are the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, Attorney General of the United States, the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget. I believe those are all
appointed by the President. How about that? But it's a private,
nonprofit corporation; so surely the Federal Government wouldn't try to
control it.
But the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security and Attorney General, shall appoint 11 other
individuals who serve as non-Federal members of the board.
Well, isn't that happy news? They're not really Federal even though
the President's appointees are the ones that will be on the board with
these folks. They'll owe their appointment to them.
But it's just interesting. I bet the President has no idea. And, of
course, I know the President's aware of what a fiasco to our Federal
budget Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been and the danger that it
posed to our Federal economic system. Well, he's probably not aware
that in here his bill creates--I'm sure there's no way he could know
what's in this bill. He's too busy running around condemning us for not
passing it. There's no way he could have spent 6 hours reading this, 6
to 7 hours, like I did.
Anyway, if you'll double-check, you'll find, Mr. Speaker, that page
40, whoever wrote this bill thinks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a
wonderful, wonderful thing. The Federal Government, insuring all these
home loans and, then, of course, we pass laws.
I do remember our friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) assuring
everybody that they're in good shape, not a problem. It turned out they
weren't in good shape. He didn't know. Mr. Frank wouldn't come down
here and misrepresent something like that, I know. He wouldn't. He just
didn't know, just like the President has no clue what all is in this
bill.
But if he'll check at the bottom of page 40, he'll find the American
Infrastructure Financing Authority says it's established as a wholly
owned government corporation. So if you like Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, you think they've done a great job, you're going to love this
bill. It's like both of them combined, exponentially increased and put
on steroids. Because we know houses, compared to infrastructure, don't
cost all that much. But, boy, you compare them to infrastructure, man.
This has to be the thinking of whoever put this bill together, and I
know it wasn't the President because he couldn't have put this together
and gone around telling people things that are in it, not knowing this
kind of stuff that is in it. But the American Infrastructure Financing
Authority--and we could do that like we did the flood insurance. You
know, the Federal Government says, well, we need a Federal player in
the insurance business; so we provided a Federal option.
Well, guess what, the Federal Government runs in the red on the flood
insurance. Private companies can't keep up with that, and so insurance
companies quit providing flood insurance in those parts and the Federal
Government became the insurer.
It's the same way with student loans. Banks, other lending
institutions could lend money for student loans, and they were backed
by the government. But under Speaker Pelosi and this President, Harry
Reid, the Federal Government decided we're going to take over all the
student loans.
{time} 1640
Well, that creates a concern for some because if you're as outspoken
as some of us are, I'm just grateful my daughter has just finished her
college degree so I won't have to come begging to the President for a
student loan so my children can go to college. Is that what we want? Is
that where we want the infrastructure financing to go? Every school
district, town, county, State has to come begging to the Federal
Government because we run everybody else out of business, like we did
student loans and flood insurance?
Surely the President doesn't know this is in here. This is not a jobs
bill; it's a government takeover. Same with
[[Page H6548]]
the public safety broad band authority or corporation.
I bet a lot of folks don't know about the short time compensation
program. It's a new program, never created before, but it's in the
President's bill. The participation, it says, is involuntary. But if an
employer under this program reduces hours worked by employees instead
of laying them off, and that's anybody who has been reduced by at least
10 percent, then it says they're eligible for unemployment
compensation. It gives out the terms for that. I bet the President
doesn't know that's in there.
Now I have to agree with him, it is a jobs bill for plaintiff's
lawyers because we have seen over and over a lot of states doing tort
reform. It's more and more difficult to sue people. So we have got a
new program here that will help with lawyers that are out of work
because here in the bill, we've created a new class of protected
individuals. So if you're unemployed and you get laid off, you ought to
see a lawyer if you feel like you weren't hired because you're
unemployed, because you can sue. You can file a claim, at least,
against the employer that didn't hire you.
Now, a practical look at that provision, allowing employers to be
sued if they fail to hire someone who is unemployed, would make
employers--I've already heard from them--if that ends up in the law,
I'm not going to be hiring anybody. I can't take a chance on being sued
or having claims filed against me. If five people unemployed come in,
four of them don't get the job and they all four file claims against
me, I can't afford that.
So I think once the President ever gets to look at his bill, then
he'll understand this is not what he's thinking it is.
And, of course, he's promised America we're going after major oil
companies. There is no way this President could know that page 151-154,
the part that goes after oil companies, will not affect his friends at
British Petroleum, Exxon, Shell. They won't be affected because the
most important deductions that are repealed here are only for smaller
producers, the independent producers who drill 94 percent of all the
oil and gas wells on the land of the continental U.S. There's no way he
could know that, even if he read this, unless he really understood the
oil and gas industry.
So what he'll do, he drives up the capital for companies trying to
drill wells, and this will be a disaster unless you're a major oil
company, in which case you'll make more profit than you've ever made
because you kill off all of the independent competition. That's what
his bill does, and I'm sure he doesn't know that.
Now, they have also been out there blaming Republicans for increasing
the debt. This was in an article. We've got it up on the House Web site
so people can really see what has happened. It's a great article from
the Atlanta Journal Constitution. This is one of the diagrams. It shows
who really increased the debt. We know from the Constitution that it is
the Congress that holds the purse strings. So really the one
responsible, most responsible, is the Congress. And who's most
responsible, the biggest, most powerful body is controlled by the
Speaker; you, Mr. Speaker--that is while you're pro tempore. This shows
the increase in debt as a percentage of GDP. And we see what happened
under Speaker O'Neill. We see what happened under Speaker Jim Wright.
Didn't really increase much in debt as a percentage of GDP. Under
Speaker Foley, it increased a great deal. And actually under Speaker
Gingrich and Speaker Hastert, debt as a percentage of GDP, it went way
down. And then we got the last 4 years with Speaker Pelosi, and it went
through the roof like has never happened in this country's history.
Well, I hope I have provided an adequate defense to those who would
say that the President is misrepresented because I think I've got
proof. The President didn't lie about any of this stuff. He hasn't had
time to read it. He doesn't know what's in it. I hope and pray that
he'll take the time to do that so he can accurately represent the
saving Obama's job bill, and I appreciate the President's support for
the American Jobs Act, which bill is mine.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________