[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 48 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1945-H1948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADMINISTRATION IN REVIEW
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stewart). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I know the intention of my friends on the
other side of the aisle. We all want the country to run at maximum peak
performance so that people have jobs. But it's interesting the ways we
have going about trying to see that that happens.
Interesting, in fact, we got the President's budget yesterday--of
course it took 2 months or so beyond what the law says that the
President must do. We also know that when it comes to people being in
the country illegally, the President decided that he didn't like the
laws that were passed by Congresses of the past, both Democrat and
Republican, signed into law by Presidents, both Democrat and
Republican, and so President Obama got up and did what you don't
normally find in a country with representative government, he just
announced: I don't like the law the way it is, so here's the new law,
and basically pronounced new law into being with regard to who will be
allowed to have amnesty in the country, and that program has already
started.
In the past, the Founders' intent was well carried out because I've
been advised by people who worked here in Democratic majorities as
Democratic leaders and Republican leaders of the past who said, yes, in
the past, if you had a President stand up and say, I'm choosing to
ignore the law that has been passed by prior Congresses, signed into
being by their Presidents; I'm going to ignore those and just pronounce
new law: So as I say it, so shall it be--if you had a President that
acted like that, then both Democratic and Republican leaders would get
together and they would head down Pennsylvania Avenue, that way. They
would announce themselves and let the President know that either he
would begin to comply with the law and stop doing what is solely the
responsibility of Congress, or they would cut off all funding to
everything he cared about. And that would take care of it.
{time} 1630
Unfortunately, these days the President, those in power in the White
House and executive branch, have noted that since the Democratic Party
is the majority in the Senate, then even when there are enough people
in the Republican Party in the House who have the nerve to stand up and
say we will no longer allow violations of the law or creations of law
out of whole cloth without following the Constitution, the Senate would
stop those actions because they're not going to let anything like that
pass the Senate. And, therefore, we have bureaucrats who begin to
announce to elected Members of this government that they really don't
care what we have to say, that we're not going to stop them from doing
whatever they want, because the Senate will block anything we try to do
here at the House.
Because this is a divided Capitol building with the Senate in the
majority of Democratic hands and the House in Republican majority
control, it is very important that we note what the other branch, the
Presidency, is pronouncing. Under the President's proposed budget,
there is an article here dated April 10 from CNS News that says:
[[Page H1946]]
The OMB's historical tables also reveal that the White
House does not expect this administration to ever run an
annual deficit as low as $458.5 billion, which was the
deficit the government ran in fiscal 2008, the last fiscal
year completed before Obama took office.
It's also important to note that in 2006, the last year Republicans
were in control of the House, we were properly ridiculed by Democrats
on this side of the aisle because we ran $160 billion-or-so budget
spending over the amount that was coming in, that we had $160 billion
in deficit spending. And the Democrats were correct: we should not have
had $160 billion in deficit spending.
Having no idea that the promises from the friends on this side of the
aisle who said, If you will just put us in the majority, we'll cut that
$160 billion deficit spending the Republicans have done and we will get
a balanced budget, we won't deficit spend, who would have believed that
when they took over as a majority, that within 2 years they would have
tripled--basically tripled--the amount of deficit spending. So much for
the promise that we're going to cut deficit spending. So the $160
billion or so went to $458.5 billion, about tripled the deficit.
And then who could have possibly imagined that during President
Obama's first year in office, when Democratic control was both the
House and the Senate, that they would have the nerve to not run $160
billion deficit, as they said they would never do, or the $458 billion
deficit, nearly three times as much as 2008, but that they would go 10
times that amount of $160 billion and hit about $1.6 trillion in
deficit spending.
There are several markers being laid down in this country that make
it very clear that this country is on a crash course. There are no seat
belts, there are no harnesses, there are no air bags. We are barreling
down this road to a definite end unless we get this thing under
control.
And for the President to propose for the first time in American
history that before he leaves office in 2017, under the President's
proposed budget he will preside over the spending of $4.0898 trillion
in fiscal year 2016, it's unbelievable. We've got somewhere between
$2.3 trillion and $2.5 trillion that is expected to be coming in to the
Treasury this year, and the President is proposing $3.8 trillion in
spending. It is outrageous.
And at the same time, the President has closed down tours. There's no
indication that there has actually been even $18,000 or $74,000 or
$78,000 in savings from not having White House tours. So you begin to
wonder, now, wait a minute, you said it was to save all this money is
the reason you cut out White House tours, that it wasn't just a temper
tantrum to make people suffer. So, let's see, where is the savings? If
there are no Secret Service being furloughed, there are no Secret
Service being laid off, it would appear there's no savings.
So what then could have possibly been the purpose for saying no more
White House tours? Some have said, well, Congress is just mad because
it complicates their job. People saying those types of things really
have no clue what's going on in Washington, because the fact is a
Member of Congress' life, be it Democrat or Republican, is actually
less complicated when you don't have to arrange for White House tours.
It's something that Members of Congress had taken on voluntarily in
order to help the White House. So we would make the arrangements,
people would call and come through our office, then we would have to
write requests, beg the White House, can you find enough tickets for
these individuals to allow them to go through the White House, and then
we would get word back. There for a while it was unpleasant when the
President first started, because we had trouble getting tickets for
anybody the first year or so, which meant that the President got to
have people furious with Members of Congress because they blamed
Members of Congress for not being able to go through the White House on
a tour, when actually we would just get notice and only be able to pass
that on.
So it actually makes Members of Congress' life far less complicated
when we don't have to arrange for White House tours. But the Members of
Congress I know, on both the Democratic side and the Republican side,
really want to enhance visits for their constituents to Washington,
D.C., and so we are willing to spend part of our budget to have
somebody help arrange those tours for constituents coming to
Washington. We help the White House by doing that.
Even though our offices, every congressional budget has been cut
about 20 percent over the last 3 years, we haven't cut out those
constituent services. We have one person less in my office we just
didn't replace by attrition. We've had to make adjustments. And I'm
grateful to have a staff that is willing to work hard and long hours.
They don't get paid overtime, but they're willing to do that because
they realize this is a servant's job. I am a servant. People who work
in my office are servants. We serve the public and serve at their will.
Apparently, that is not something that all bureaucrats have been able
to understand and take to heart. Then we also see big news today that a
gun bill has cleared the Senate hurdle as the filibuster falls short.
This is a FoxNews.com story that was released today.
{time} 1640
There is another story here that indicates Senator Lee says,
``Background Checks Could Allow Holder''--the attorney general--``to
Create Gun Registry Using Regulations.''
In fact, ``On Wednesday,'' it says, ``Senator Mike Lee, Republican
from Utah''--the fantastic Senator that he is; that's a parenthetical
insertion--``took to the Senate floor and warned that universal
background checks could lead to a national registry system for guns.''
A quote from my friend, Senator Lee, is:
``Some of the proposals, like, for example, universal
background checks, would allow the Federal Government to
surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their
constitutional rights. One of the provisions we expect to see
in the bill, based on what we saw in the Judiciary Committee
on which I sit, would allow the attorney general of the
United States, Eric Holder, to promulgate regulations that
could lead to a national registry system for guns, something
my constituents in Utah are very concerned about, and
understandably so.''
Lee also said that the government had no place monitoring the legal
exercise of any constitutional right a citizen chooses to exercise:
``You see, the Federal Government has no business
monitoring when or how often you go to church, what books and
newspapers you read, who you vote for, your health
conditions--''
And actually, I have to differ with Senator Lee on health conditions.
ObamaCare means the government gets to monitor all your health
conditions and actually will have all of your health care records, as
well.
Senator Lee goes on:
--``what you eat for breakfast and the details of your
private life, including the lawful exercise of your rights
protected by the Second Amendment and other provisions of the
Bill of Rights.''
Important quotes by Senator Mike Lee.
With regard to the gun bill that's been rushed through the Senate, it
is worth noting again that when bills are rushed through without being
given proper scrutiny, we create bad laws, we make mistakes, and the
country and the Constitution suffer. It's part of our oath that we will
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; and I would
humbly submit we don't do that job when we rush through bills that
people have not had a chance to read, to participate in.
As my friends know, I have, on this very floor, read quotes from
Minority Leader John Boehner who, in essence, told Major Garrett that:
If we get back the majority, a Speaker John Boehner will
bring bills through regular order. I'm not going to rush them
to the floor like Speaker Pelosi has done.
And I've had to remind my own leadership of those promises because we
keep rushing through bills as Republicans that people do not have
enough time to read. And I'm hoping and praying and arguing and
cajoling to try to make sure we stop that process and that we return to
regular order.
There are some bad bills that come out of regular order to be sure;
but when we have full debate at a subcommittee level over a proposed
bill and any member of that subcommittee--this is called regular
[[Page H1947]]
order--any member of that subcommittee can bring an amendment to any
provision in that bill, you get some scrutiny of the bill in its
entirety.
Then when we have a markup at the full committee level and any
member--Republican or Democrat. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if
they're on or not on any of the subcommittees. At the full committee,
any member of the full committee can bring an amendment to that bill.
We took most of the day today marking up a pretty simple bill, I
thought, on the issue of reining in overregulation and getting Congress
to take a look at the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that
come out so regularly from bureaucrats that never catch the eye of
elected officials. It was a pretty simple bill. It took hours and hours
to go through that because there were so many proposed amendments. And
each amendment that gets made has a chance for the proponent to argue
for at least 5 minutes in favor of his amendment; and then under the
rules, any member of the committee can spend up to 5 minutes on each
amendment. It's not a pretty process, it's not pleasant to sit through,
but we get better bills when we go through that process.
Then it comes to the Rules Committee. And I prefer if the Rules
Committee allows for a fully open debate. We have an open amendment
process. It's not pretty either, but it gives people across America a
chance to see who is advocating for what amendment, what language. And
you have had all this time, from the subcommittee to the committee to
the House floor; and every Member of the House, no matter who you are
or no matter whether you're in disfavor with the leadership like some
of us may be, you can bring amendments in an open process under regular
order, and you have a chance to debate those and America has a chance
to see who's standing for what positions. It gives them a chance at the
next election to better select who they want better representing them
by virtue of what positions they're taking.
But when it goes through the process it just did through the Senate,
there's not proper scrutiny and things come to the floor and we're not
sure what the impact is. It can get so ridiculous that you can even
have a Speaker of the House say, ``But we have to pass the bill so that
you can find out what is in it.'' That's not the way we're supposed to
govern. We have an obligation to do better than that.
Now, we've also gotten word that from the sequester that hit here
just recently--this is an article by Elizabeth Harrington, dated April
9 of this week, ``Safe from Sequester: $704,198 for Gardening at NATO
Ambassador's Home.''
Well, that should be a nice garden. I like to work in the yard around
our house. I don't have as much chance as I used to, nor does my wife,
but I'm pretty sure that the gorgeous yard we have didn't cost $704,198
on our property. So you would have thought that perhaps if people were
going to help the President that are in the President's administration,
they'd go, Hey, I can make do on $200,000 for my yard work this year.
So you can get another half million back right there.
Gee, just think of all the White House tours that would fund, even
though it doesn't look like the cutting of the tours actually saved
anything.
Then we have some very salient points made by Investors.com, titled,
``Six Ways Obama's Budget Is Worse Than Everyone Thinks.'' It's posted
4/10/2013:
Fiscal policy: Shorn of its accounting gimmicks, the
President's budget isn't a balanced plan to get the debt
crisis under control. It's a monument to fiscal
irresponsibility.
With much fanfare and a lot of media hype, President Obama
unveiled his latest budget plan--2 months late. An IBD review
of Obama's budget finds that, among other things, it:
Boosts spending and deficits over the next 2 years. Obama's
own budget numbers show that he wants to hike spending over
the next 2 years by $247 billion compared with the
``baseline,'' which even after his proposed new tax hikes
would mean $157 billion in additional red ink.
And it's important to understand, and I insert this parenthetically
here, when we talk about a baseline--yes, the bill I've been pushing
for 8 years, a zero-baseline budget where no Federal department has
automatic increases, did pass the House a year ago. And I'm very
grateful to Rob Woodall and Paul Ryan and to the Speaker keeping his
word and bringing it to the floor. We passed it in the House. But the
Senate, under Senator Reid, made clear, no, we want every department in
the Federal bureaucracy having an automatic increase in their budget
every year. We want their budgets going up every year.
{time} 1650
Now, Social Security, they may not get an automatic increase.
Medicare, they may be cut by $700 billion as they were under ObamaCare;
but when it comes to every Federal bureaucracy, Senator Reid made clear
they were not going to pass a zero-baseline budget, that they were not
going to do away with the automatic increases. They were going to push
forward and make sure the government bloat--the government obesity as a
bureaucracy--would continue and that there would be automatic increases
in every single Federal budget.
So, when this article points out that the President adds to the
baseline, it means the President is already adding to what has been an
automatic increase in their budgets for every department already. It
may take another election to get people who are thinking correctly in
the Senate, Democrat or Republican, who will finally stand up and say,
You know what? There isn't an individual, there's not a family, there's
not a charity, there's not a business anywhere in America that has an
automatic increase every year in their budget, so we're stopping it for
the government. If an agency or a department wants an increase, they're
going to have to come in and justify it.
Now, some of us wouldn't mind starting every year with a zero sum,
and you'd have to justify anything that you'd get at all; but all the
zero baseline does is say we are willing to start where we were last
year, and if you need an increase, we'll increase. That way, when those
of us conservatives who advocate for a decrease in the increase are
actually still allowing for an increase, we aren't vilified for making
draconian cuts, because the increases are still there. If we can get to
a zero baseline, then you will actually be able to have honest and
accurate criticism because, at that point, a cut would actually be a
cut; it would not be a decrease in the automatic increase. But
President Obama, not content with the overspending and the waste,
fraud, and abuse that's going on, is adding even above the automatic
increases with his budget.
This article from Investors.com says:
Vastly exaggerates spending cuts: The press has widely
reported that Obama's budget would cut spending a total of
$1.2 trillion over the next decade, but Obama's own budget
shows that he actually cuts spending a mere $186 billion.
(The relevant tables can be found at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/
assets/tables.pdf.)
Obama inflates his claimed savings by first cancelling the
automatic sequester spending cuts he previously signed into
law, then reclaiming them as new savings, and by adding in
cuts in interest payments on the debt.
I didn't realize that that went on, actually.
The article says:
Relies almost entirely on tax hikes: Obama's budget shows
his plan would increase revenues by $1.14 trillion over the
next decade. That means his budget proposes $6 in new taxes
for every $1 in spending cuts.
Cuts the deficit less than claimed: ``My budget will reduce
our deficits by nearly another $2 trillion,'' Obama said
Wednesday. But his budget shows total deficit reduction over
the next decade would be just $1.4 trillion. Plus, deficits
start rising again after 2018.
It should be noted that CBO does not have a good grasp on reality.
I've met with Director Elmendorf. I've talked to him more than once. I
appreciate the job they're trying to do, but when they estimate the
cost of ObamaCare at $800 billion, and then after it passes say,
Whoops, maybe $1.1 trillion, and then after it's almost coming into
effect say, You know what? It could be $1.6 trillion or $1.8 trillion,
and then others more accurately say, You know what? It may be $2.8
trillion, that means, if they originally estimate $800 billion and it
ends up being $2.8 trillion, then they've got a margin of error rate of
plus or minus, not 1, 2, 3, or 4 percent, but more like 300 to 400
percent.
Why are we even considering CBO projections when they're projecting
costs with a margin of error of 300 to
[[Page H1948]]
400 percent? I think you'd have better luck just bringing somebody
right out of college in here and saying, You give us your guess.
Surely, your margin of error would be closer than 300 or 400 percent.
Anyway, Investors.com points out that Obama's budget ``creates a new
entitlement without a reliable means to pay for it.''
Obama claims he can finance a new $76 billion ``preschool
for all'' program by raising tobacco taxes again; but after
an initial spike, tobacco tax revenues will start trending
downward year after year as more people quit smoking while
the costs of this new program will keep climbing. The last
time Obama hiked tobacco taxes--to pay for an expansion of
Medicaid--revenues came in $2.2 billion less than expected.
So, apparently, if the President wants more revenue from smoking,
he's going to need to start doing a campaign to encourage people to
smoke more so that he can get more taxes in and bring down the massive
deficit that he is wanting to create.
This report points out from Investors.com:
The President boosts taxes on the middle class: Obama
proposes to change the government's consumer price index in a
way that will lower the official inflation rate. He's selling
it as a way to cut Social Security annual cost of living
adjustments, which are based on the CPI; but because his
chained CPI would also apply to annual tax bracket
adjustments, it will end up hiking taxes on the middle class
$124 billion.
The American people deserve better, and I hope and pray the Senate
will wake up, come to their senses and stop trying to ram legislation
through that America does not deserve.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________