[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 154 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6619-H6621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     RIGHTING THE WRONGS IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barletta). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. It's uplifting to hear my friend, Dan Lungren from 
California. What an amazing public servant he has been. I fought 
battles with the man. I know his heart. And he's going to be sorely 
missed. He cares so deeply about this country.
  Such is the lot of people whose country has leadership decided by 
elections. Sometimes good things happen, sometimes they don't. But 
democracy ensures that a people are governed no better than they 
deserve. So whether someone liked President Reagan or President George 
H.W. Bush or President Bill Clinton or President George W. Bush or 
President Barack Obama, the truth is that at the time they were elected 
President, we as a Nation overall got the President we deserved at that 
time.
  One of the most impressive speeches I've ever heard was given by 
Senator Barack Obama at the Democratic Convention. And I love the way 
he talked about America, coming back as one America. Not a red America 
or a blue America, but America. Just one country. And it was one of the 
things that I drew great hope from on 9/12/2001 as people around the 
country gathered around, as we did in our local east Texas town, and 
people of all races and ages and gender, and we all held hands and we 
sang hymns and patriotic songs. And I looked around the circle and was 
deeply moved because I knew that day there were no hyphenated 
Americans, there were just Americans. And we were together. And 
everybody standing there in that square holding hands, we shared the 
love for our country. We wanted to see it strong. We wanted to see it 
recover from that devastating blow from people intent on evil, based on 
hatred.
  That senator that wanted one America has presided in such a way that 
we seem more divided than ever--more people on food stamps, more people 
below the poverty level, more people struggling than ever before. We 
were told if the $900 billion giveaway stimulus proposal--porkulus some 
called it--if that was passed, we would be recovering very quickly. And 
if we did not pass that stimulus, porkulus, whatever you want to call 
it, if we didn't pass that bill in early 2009, the country might well 
reach unemployment rates as high as 8, 8.5 percent, as I recall. Well, 
guess what? We passed it and things got worse. It was a terrible bill. 
It was not the way you fix an economy in danger, suffering.

                              {time}  1620

  What's so tragic right now, Mr. Speaker, is how many people across 
America are struggling, out of work. I'm not just talking manual 
laborers or older workers, I mean all ages, well-educated, poorly 
educated. We've got people out of work around this country that are 
really in desperate straits. Some take different approaches. I was 
shown numbers that indicated at one point that when people are 
unemployed, many of them will look full time for employment, for 
substitute employment, but on average may have 30 minutes a week--for 
an average--until the last 2 weeks of the unemployment benefits, and at 
that time it may go as high as an average of 10 hours or so of the last 
2 weeks looking for employment.
  This President is demanding that we extend unemployment benefits for 
another year for those who have been unemployed for a year. We also 
know that in his JOBS Act--it was really a JOBS Act for lawyers because 
they created a new protected class called the unemployed; so that if 
you had been unemployed for 2 years and you go apply for a job and the 
employer looking for a worker considers the fact that you didn't look 
for a job for 2 years and instead hired somebody that had been out of 
work for a month and was desperately spending all his or her time 
looking for employment, if you considered the fact that somebody had 
been unemployed, how long they had been unemployed, then you would be 
sued under the President's proposed bill.
  So it was going to be a great boon to trial lawyers, to plaintiffs' 
lawyers because they would be suing on behalf of every unemployed 
worker who went and looked for a job for the first time in a couple of 
years. I mean, you could have that kind of scenario, not look for a job 
for a year or two, go look for a job, and then turn your case over to a 
lawyer to sue anybody that didn't hire you because you didn't show any 
particular motivation, and most employers want motivated employees.
  So we know that the President has made this proposal; he wants to 
extend unemployment for another year. Just to show what a worthless 
organization--they're smart people; they're very good people; they're a 
good organization, but their rules are so pitiful, so unrealistic, so 
unmoored to the foundation of good economic projections--we have the 
Congressional Budget Office, CBO. They come in, and apparently--I was 
reading an AP story. I didn't see the CBO numbers themselves, but the 
story said that, according to CBO projections, extending unemployment 
for another year for those that have been unemployed for a year now 
would cost $30 billion. But the great thing is that $30 billion of 
paying people to remain unemployed would create 300,000 jobs. So what a 
great thing for America, for our economy if you spend $30 billion and 
create 300,000 jobs. Until you start looking at the numbers and you go, 
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We're spending $30 billion. We're told if 
we do that it will create 300,000 jobs? Well, that's not very smart. 
That's $100,000 that we would be spending for every job we create.
  What kind of math is being utilized by the White House and by CBO? I 
mean, how stupid are Americans? Oh, yeah, great idea. Let's let the 
government spend another $100,000 to create one job that may not be but 
a part-time job, pay $20,000 or so. Well, I'll bet if we offered people 
across America, made an offer, we want to create 300,000 jobs this 
month and so we're looking for bids. Who will come to work for less 
than $100,000? I'll bet you would get 300,000 people working very 
quickly for a whole lot less than $100,000 a job.
  So that kind of math is what has gotten us in trouble. It's why we 
need an alternative to CBO scoring that deals realistically with what 
we're engaged in, because it's only when we have a scoring system for 
bills that is wedded to legitimacy and historical reality that we will 
begin to have better legislation. Because when you have a group that 
has such ridiculous rules to score bills that it will come in and say 
ObamaCare, yes, it will cost $1.1 trillion, and then they have their 
Director called to the Oval Office and reminded, apparently, that the 
President promised it would cost less than $1 trillion

[[Page H6620]]

and they rescore it and come back with $800 billion--with a wink and a 
nod, apparently--and then after it passes, they come back and say, Oh, 
you know what, it was actually more than a trillion. Now we're told 
maybe $1.6 trillion--who knows, 1.8, maybe 2.0. Who knows. But any 
entity whose margin of error for scoring bills in Congress is plus or 
minus 100 percent margin of error does not need to be allowed to do any 
more scoring. We need to do a competition of it. It's what Americans do 
well. When we compete as a nation, when we have people in America 
competing, we do better. So let's have competition for scoring bills.
  I was having a wonderful discussion with one of the best economic 
minds in the country, Arthur Laffer, and I said I was hoping that maybe 
we could get someone else to score bills--Moody's, S&P, others. My 
office had checked with Moody's. They said they don't score bills. He 
said, They will if you pay them, and I bet you you could get it done 
for a whole lot less than what it cost to keep CBO going.
  So think about that. We start having a competition for scoring bills 
so that we can get legitimate bills, not one where America is promised 
it will cost $800 billion only to find out it's going to be more than 
twice that amount even before it really comes into fruition. We need 
competitive scoring. Then, over a few years of time, we will begin to 
see who's more accurate and who's not. We will be able to score the 
scorers. Because until that time, we will continue to limp along and 
have ridiculous mathematics like CBO telling us that ObamaCare will 
cost $800 billion and shortly later coming back and saying it's 
probably going to be $1.6 trillion. A margin of error of 100 percent is 
intolerable. It's time for a different means of scoring.
  Let's have competition. I think that you would end up having some of 
the universities in the country have their--whether it's economic or 
finance departments. Texas A&M has a great department that does a lot 
of projections and calculations. I know there are schools around the 
country that do that. We could make a competition. And the better you 
are at scoring, perhaps the more you get paid for scoring bills because 
you're more accurate. Make it a competition. Because in the meantime, 
having an entity that scores bills, that is used to condemn a bill or 
raise a bill to the heights, is bringing us down to economic ruin. It's 
one of the little parts of the puzzle that needs fixing.

                              {time}  1630

  So we have a President who continues to be vague on what he will 
accept to avoid what people are calling the fiscal cliff. Well, I might 
remind people that the fiscal cliff was gone over in August of 2011. 
Some have already forgotten. We were told if we didn't have a debt 
ceiling increase by August 2, we were going over the financial cliff. 
It was financial Armageddon. Everything would melt down. It was all 
going to be just this horrible financial melee. It was a disaster. We 
could not allow ourselves to get to August 2 without having a debt 
ceiling increase.
  Some of us made proposals, and we took a look at what was being 
proposed. And we said, Are you kidding, a supercommittee? That's not 
going to do any good. They will never be allowed to reach an agreement. 
Some of us were told, Well, of course they'll reach an agreement 
because if they don't, there will be these massive amounts of 
devastating cuts to our defense and devastating cuts to Medicare. 
They'd never allow $300 billion or so to be cut from Medicare on the 
other side of the Capitol here. And I reminded my friends they just cut 
$700 billion from Medicare for ObamaCare.
  This President and the Senate were pitting our seniors against 
younger workers in America. They're pitting our seniors on Social 
Security and Medicare against younger workers. What kind of President, 
what kind of party, what kind of Senate does such a thing? Why would 
you pit younger workers against our seniors? But that's what occurred 
with the debt ceiling bill.
  That's what occurred with the 2 percent cut to the Social Security 
tax. It sounded like a great idea, and now we find out 2 years later, 
actually, that 2 percent reduction in the amount of money that workers 
pay into Social Security, it was a very small amount, relatively 
speaking, to the amount of debt the United States and workers are 
having to run up because of the poor economy.
  But we were told, Oh, it may save them $60, $80 a month. It may be 
such a great thing. And yet $60, $80--as important as that is to any 
individual worker--meant that last year, for the first time, the Social 
Security taxes coming in did not cover the Social Security checks going 
out. It meant that this administration pushed through a bill with 
Leader Reid down in the Senate pushing the way for it. It meant that 
seniors' checks were not covered by the Social Security taxes being 
paid by at least 5 percent.
  There were projections then that it was a 5 percent shortfall last 
year, and this year it's going to be a 14, 15 percent shortfall. That 
wasn't supposed to happen for several years. Republicans and Democrats 
were debating in years past--since I've been here in the last 8 years--
about how, no, that wouldn't happen until 2018. Others said, no, that 
won't happen until 2048. Well, it happened last year in 2011. The money 
coming in from Social Security tax did not cover Social Security 
payments. And so what's the proposal by this President and Leader Reid? 
It's, let's gut Social Security even further. Let's make it bankrupt 
even quicker.
  Listen, what's going on? I know we all have the goal of making 
America stronger, but we're seeing that what is happening is hurting 
the economy. It's making America weaker. And for all of the talk this 
fall about, gee, we may have turned the corner economically if it 
weren't for our czar, the Federal Reserve czar, Bernanke, creating 
money out of thin air, then the economy would be even worse than it is 
today. But I think the President owes Mr. Bernanke a great thank you 
for helping him win reelection by creating so much money out of 
nothing.
  But the trouble with that is next year Americans will pay a very 
severe price, as we see inflation start to take hold. But the 
President, Mr. Bernanke, they knew that that inflation wouldn't really 
kick in now before the election. So it helped him win reelection. And 
then we would get into next year, and then the inflation would start 
kicking in. And then with a poor economy and inflation, we're back to 
the end of the Carter years.
  And with the President having cut the permits down in half for 
drilling on Federal land from what they were under the Bush 
administration, he was able to receive the benefits of the permits done 
during the Bush years so he could say, Look, we're producing more on 
Federal land. Isn't that great. Well, yes, but now we're going to start 
seeing the consequences of cutting in half the number of permits during 
the Obama administration's first term; and there will be a price to pay 
in our energy costs over the next 4 years.
  We hear people saying over and over and over again Americans must pay 
their fair share. The rich must pay their fair share. Everyone must pay 
their fair share. And on that, I am in 100 percent agreement with our 
President, with Leader Reid at the other end of this building, with my 
friends across the aisle, the Democrats here who want everybody to pay 
their fair share. I'm in 100 percent agreement. We absolutely should do 
that, make everybody pay their fair share.
  You know, lots of folks use the metaphor, Let's make sure everybody 
has some skin in the game. Well, if you really want to have everyone 
pay their fair share, there is an easy answer; and, fortunately, it 
would drive this economy to brand-new heights. It would drive this 
country and our economy to a new economic renaissance. It would be 
incredible. And all of our friends around the country who are 
suffering, who don't have even $3 a gallon to pay for gasoline, it 
would help them when they can't handle the rent going up and the 
groceries going up. It would help them as we saw the economy become 
more vibrant because after 4 years, if Tim Geithner were really honest, 
he would come forward and say, as Secretary of Treasury Morgenthau did 
in 1940 when he wrote:

       We have spent more money than any country in history, and 
     we have nothing to show for it but more debt.

  That's what a Secretary of the Treasury who wanted to be honest would 
say after 4 years of the most incredible

[[Page H6621]]

spending beyond anything that Secretary Morgenthau, under Roosevelt, 
could have ever dreamed.
  Well, here's a good answer. When you hear the term ``fair share,'' 
think flat tax. You want people to pay their fair share, make a flat 
tax.
  Now, the President has had his friend Warren Buffett, one of many of 
the megarich in this country--in fact, the megarich Wall Street 
apparently support the President four to one over Republicans. It's one 
of the great, amazing misconceptions in America. Wall Street executives 
and their spouses donate four to one to Democrats over Republicans. So 
I would like to see the fat cat Democrats and the fat cat Republicans 
all pay their fair share. I'm tired of hearing Warren Buffett say he 
doesn't pay as much a rate as his secretary and he wishes the rich were 
taxed more.

                              {time}  1640

  What hypocrisy is that? Holy cow. It's really easy. We've made it 
easy. Just write the check to the U.S. Government, IRS, however you 
want to. We'll cash it however you want to write it.
  You want everybody to pay their fair share? Let's pay taxes at a flat 
tax rate. The great thing about a flat tax is when you make more, you 
pay more; when you make less, you pay less. The other thing about a 
flat tax, it doesn't just need to be a flat tax on income; it ought to 
be a flat tax across the board.
  Some think there should be no deductions. I'm in favor of two. A 
brilliant mind, even though he went to Harvard, Arthur Laffer, has an 
idea, and he's talking in terms of two good deductions: a mortgage 
interest deduction and charitable deductions. Frankly, I don't want to 
see a cap on charitable deductions, because that plays right into this 
administration's desire to have government be the end-all, be-all 
charity, even though as we've seen from Katrina under a Republican 
administration and we've seen from Sandy under a Democratic 
administration, the Federal Government is not the best answer for 
getting help quickly enough to people. It was the private sector that 
got gas, water, and help most quickly to people who suffered from 
Hurricane Katrina and from Hurricane Sandy. But a proposal to cap 
charitable contributions as deductions would end up killing charities 
and forcing people to come begging, Oh, please, government, would you 
please give me a morsel, give me another crumb. So whichever party 
happens to be in power gets more power, Republican or Democrat, we've 
got to stop that cycle of dependency. We have got to help people reach 
their God-given potential.
  When you hear about fair share, you want an equal percentage tax, 
let's have one for Warren Buffett and the same rate for his secretary. 
Let's make the income tax, the corporate tax, the capital gains tax, 
the gift tax, the estate tax, let's just make them all 15 percent 
across the board. I'll never have a problem with an estate tax, but it 
is outrageous to make people sell the family farm or sell the business 
or get in hock up to their ears for something their parents have worked 
a lifetime to build up. People like Warren Buffet, the ultrarich, 
they're not going to have to worry about the estate tax because they're 
able to pay megabucks for lawyers and brilliant financial analysts to 
come up with a way--usually involving life insurance and different 
things--to take care of their estate tax. So it's not the megarich.
  When people say they're going after the rich fat cats, England did 
that in 2009. An article last week pointed out that in 2009, England 
increased to 50 percent, in addition to all the other taxes they have, 
the tax against people making 1 million pounds or more, and that next 
year England went from having 16,000 people who were making 1 million 
pounds or more a year to 6,000. They dropped from 16,000 people making 
more than 1 million pounds a year to 6,000. That's an incredible drop, 
a two-thirds loss. So there was no additional income made--or, it's not 
made--it's taken. There was no additional income taken by raising the 
taxes on the rich because they're too elusive to nail down.
  So you might as well set up a system that doesn't keep punishing the 
middle class. The truth is, when you raise taxes on the ultrarich and 
you keep spending to match that--and actually this administration and 
some friends in this Congress want to keep raising the amount we spend 
instead of getting realistic. When you keep doing that, what you hurt 
is the middle class. They're the ones that suck it up because the 
middle class--when you work at a store or a factory or a mechanic's 
garage, any of the places that the middle class work, when you work 
there, you can't just pick up your factory if you're a worker and move 
wherever you want where the taxes are less. The owners of the factory 
can, they can move. They don't have to pay the higher tax. The workers 
can't. As you see what happened in England, when that happens 
everywhere, when you raise taxes on the ultrarich, they move because 
they can. And who has to suck up all that extra money that has to be 
provided for, that the government doesn't have? It's the middle class 
that does.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________