[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8772-8778]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        STIMULATING THE ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I enjoyed visiting with my neighbors and talking in the previous 
hour. They are welcome to join me if they would like to talk some more.
  I'm going to be joined here in a minute by a good colleague of mine, 
Louie Gohmert, a Congressman from east Texas, and we are going to talk 
about an idea that Louie has got. It's an idea that an awful lot of 
people find interesting. It's the idea that maybe the easiest way in 
the world to get money in the hands of the American people is to just 
give them their own money.
  It's not real complicated. It's pretty simple. But I want to let him 
talk to you about it because the option that we've got right now is 
that as we look at that stimulus package that was supposed to stimulate 
the economy, and if you look closely at it--and I don't want anybody to 
take my word for it. I want you to go to the library or on the Internet 
and pull either a review of that bill, or that bill, and look into it 
and see how the money is spent. And you will see that it's spent on 
industries that don't exist, but maybe they can make them exist. It's 
spent on things that people wish existed, and maybe they can exist. But 
they are investing in those things.
  Maybe they won't create jobs over the next 5 years, but maybe they 
will create jobs in the next 10 years. That's great, except that 
stimulus is supposed to be about now. It's supposed to be about doing 
it right now. If you believe that the economy gets saved by spending 
money, you need to spend the money now to stimulate the economy. If 
you're not, then you're putting off the rescue that you anticipate.
  I would argue, however, that government spending was tried very 
extensively from 1931 until 1941, and the unemployment in 1939, 
according to the Secretary of the Treasury at the time, was the same as 
it had been in 1931. In that 10-year period, the largest expenditures 
in the history of the Republic at the time--we're fixing to top those 
tomorrow--but at the time had been spent, and we had not gotten out of 
what is called the Great Depression.
  I want to make a point, too, that what Todd said in the other hour 
that I think is important that you hear. I want to tell you because I 
believe it's important that anybody that stands up here, confess your 
own sins.
  We as a Congress cut taxes, but we failed to cut spending. We deserve 
to be told by the voters that we didn't do it. And they did. They told 
us. The Democratic Party said: We'll do it better. And they hired them 
to do the job.
  But the key is both formulas cut taxes and cut spending and the 
economy will blossom. It has and it will. And it always has and always 
will. That's what the message is about.
  People say, Well, that's the same old thing. I'm sorry, but let's be 
honest. Let's look at the last 8 years and then look at any time in the 
history of the country where you were involved in two major wars, came 
in with a recession, and had the largest single weather disaster in the 
history of the Republic in an 8-year period, and yet the economy after 
the first three quarters grew every quarter up until the last quarter 
of the Bush administration. This is what you look at to say: Are we in 
a recession or are we not in a recession? Are we growing? We were 
always growing. We are not growing now. Nobody's anticipating we're 
going to grow for the rest of this year, although some say maybe around 
Christmas Santa Claus is going to bring us some growth. And maybe he 
is. But I have my doubts.
  My friend Louie Gohmert, who should be here in a few minutes, has 
basically said, You know, if you want to stimulate the economy, there's 
an easy way to do it. Let's just give people a tax holiday. Just tell 
them for a couple of months, You don't have to pay taxes. You get your 
full paycheck. You know what? That might just be the solution.
  So I'm looking forward to Louie talking about this tax holiday. In 
the meantime, let's talk about the budget just a little bit and what 
we're looking at.
  I see that one of my classmates is here, all dressed up and looking 
dapper. Doctor, would you like to let me yield you a little bit of time 
to say a couple of things?
  Dr. Phil Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my good 
friend John Carter for yielding time. I know I came in kind of late in 
the discussion, but I had a couple of things that I wanted to offer as 
suggestions.
  As we look at the budget and what President Obama and the Democratic 
majority want to do in regard to spending, it's based on some 
projections. I was watching television this weekend and I think the 
chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, was 
saying over and over how confident she was that this budget and this 
plan of stimulating and restoring the vigor in the economy would work 
and that the President would be able to afford to cut taxes, let the 
Bush tax cuts expire, and that the GDP would grow and be robust.

[[Page 8773]]

  Her projections that I recall were 4 percent GDP growth for a number 
of consecutive quarters. Of course, at this high unemployment rate that 
we're facing right now, my colleagues, it would come back down to the 6 
percent range.
  Well, here's a suggestion. Why don't we put some triggers on this 
budget and say that you can't let those tax cuts expire until you've 
had two or three consecutive 4 percent or more growth in the GDP and 
until the unemployment rate comes back down to 6 percent. If you're 
that confident in your program, put those triggers in there.
  If my colleague will continue to yield, I've got one other 
suggestion, and that's based on this new program that we heard from 
Secretary Geithner and the Federal Reserve in regard to buying those 
toxic assets or troubled assets. They want the government to go--we, 
the taxpayers, Mr. Speaker--to go into partnership with the private 
sector. But who they mean by the private sector is these Wall Street 
Fat Cats--maybe some of them who got us in trouble in the first place. 
They've got cash on the sidelines. So they go into this partnership 
with the Federal Government but they get the best end of the deal and 
we, the taxpayer--my colleagues may have already gone over this, Mr. 
Speaker--but it's like the private sector has everything to gain, very 
little to lose, and the public sector--we, the taxpayer--has very 
little to gain and quite a lot to potentially lose.
  Here's what I would suggest. If it's so good a program, why don't we 
just simply do this: To every person in this country who has an IRA or 
401(k), maybe they're retired, to be able then for a one-time deal to 
put up to 10,000 extra dollars in their IRA and put that into a 
government fund and let them have the opportunity to invest in these 
troubled assets. Let the public invest and not just give this 
sweetheart deal to all these Wall Street Fat Cats and we, the taxpayer, 
who don't want to be involved in that, we would not be on the hook at 
all.
  Honestly, I think a lot of people who have sat here and watched over 
the last year and a half, particularly the last 6 months, Mr. Speaker, 
their IRA value, their 401(k)s drop by 40 percent, the value of their 
home drop by 40 percent, this would give them an opportunity--praise 
God, hopefully--to recoup some of their money.
  I just wanted to make those suggestions. It was brought to me by one 
of my constituents and a good friend in my district.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, it's pretty amazing because I got an 
e-mail from a very good friend of mine, a very good businessman, John 
Avery back in my district, basically saying exactly the same thing. He 
said it would be criminal for the people who put us in this position to 
able to put 5 percent down and get 50 percent of the profits from 
buying up these assets. It would be criminal. And I happen to agree 
with him.
  I actually think you have put forward a good plan--a place where 
those who have seen their 401(k)s go to 201(k)s, as we like to joke, 
that they be able to invest in people who would offer a group--but 
become involved in buying these at 5 percent down and 50 percent of the 
profits, these bad assets.

                              {time}  1930

  But don't let the guys that put us here get out of the mess and make 
50 percent of the profit for a 5 percent investment. As my friend from 
back home said, it is criminal. And I agree with you, I think that may 
be part of what the plan is. And it frightens me with this bonus money 
we have already battled with that someone would plan a $1 trillion 
expenditure of our Federal funds that basically is going to prop up the 
very guys that put us in this mess.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. If the gentleman would yield for just 15 more 
seconds. I want to pay attribution to my colleague, a financial wizard, 
really, and a good friend, Tom Garr from Marietta, Georgia in the 11th 
Congressional District. Because it is, Mr. Speaker, our constituents a 
lot of times that bring us these great ideas. And we think we know 
everything up here in the halls of Congress, and sometimes we don't, or 
a lot of times we don't and it gets to be bizarro world, I call it. 
Even though the President is a great basketball fan, there is no place 
in this Congress or over down there on Pennsylvania Avenue for March 
Madness. It seems like that is what we have had here for the last 
couple or 3 weeks, and we need to get over that and move on. And I 
yield back to my friend.
  Mr. CARTER. I am going to yield some time to another good Georgian, 
Dr. Broun, to take as much time as he chooses to use.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I want to commend Dr. Gingrey, because we have 
been proposing all along some method of trying to develop a market for 
these toxic assets so that the taxpayers don't have to bail out Wall 
Street by giving money to the individuals that have created this mess 
through their own greed, through seeking their own end and putting the 
bill on the backs of the taxpayers, in fact, the people who can least 
afford to have that burden put on them, and that is small business in 
this country.
  I want to remind the Speaker, as well as those here in the House and 
those listening, that Republicans offered an alternative to the TARP 
bill that was presented in the last Congress. Secretary of Treasury 
Hank Paulson was totally wrong. A lot of us on the Republican side 
voted against it, there were some Democrats even that voted against it. 
And we had an alternative, an alternative that would not have created 
this huge debt on the backs of the small businesses and the taxpayers 
of this country, and we need to find solutions.
  We have proposed suspending capital gains tax. That would bring in a 
tremendous influx of cash offshore that is just sitting there. It would 
bring in a tremendous influx of cash into the financial system that 
would be placed in banks so that they would have money to capitalize 
loans. And, it would help stop some of the problems that we have with 
frozen credit markets in this country.
  We have proposed suspending the mark-to-market accounting that the 
Federal regulators are still requiring the banks to go by, which is 
continuing to freeze up assets so that banks cannot lend out money to 
people with good credit. It makes absolutely no sense. We need to 
suspend mark-to-market and find some other means of accounting that 
makes sense, that doesn't just totally torpedo the capital assets of 
all these financial institutions.
  Republicans have presented these plans. Unfortunately, the 
leadership, last year President Bush and under the directions of Hank 
Paulson, wouldn't even listen to us. They wouldn't consider those 
things. And it is one of the big mistakes I think that the last 
administration made. But, more importantly, we see the same kind of 
policy coming on right now today through Secretary of Treasury, as well 
as this current administration, as well as the leadership here in this 
House. And we as Republicans presented proposal after proposal after 
proposal, and the leadership here in this House and in the Senate have 
been obstructionist. They will not listen to any other alternative but 
their own steamroller of socialism that is being shoved down the 
throats of the American public. And it is going to strangle the 
American economy. It is going to choke the American people 
economically.
  So I commend Dr. Gingrey for a proposal of creating a market for 
these so-called toxic assets. They have value as you, Judge Carter, and 
Dr. Gingrey were just discussing, and I applaud that.
  We can solve an economic problem, and we can do it in the private 
sector, without increasing the debt of the Federal Government; because 
the Federal Government is borrowing too much, it is taxing too much, 
and it is spending too much, and we have got to stop it. I believe very 
firmly that if we don't have these alternatives considered, that it is 
going to strangle the American economy, it is going to lengthen the 
recession, it is going to deepen the recession, and maybe even push us 
into a frank depression. And we have got to

[[Page 8774]]

stop it; not only for the good of small business, which is the engine 
that creates jobs and is the economic engine that pulls along the train 
of economic prosperity here in America, but also for the people who are 
going to be most disserved by this philosophy that the leadership in 
this House and the Senate are proposing, and that is, it is going to 
hurt the people on limited incomes, it is going to hurt the people that 
are on the lower end of the economic ladder here. We need to help them 
up the ladder by giving them good jobs, good-paying jobs. And the 
policies that have been proposed by this administration, particularly 
this new budget, are going to hurt the people that our colleagues on 
the other side supposedly want to help the most. But it is going to 
hurt those poor people. It is going to help to put those people in more 
economic straits, dire straits, where they are going to be struggling 
even more.
  So I do congratulate Dr. Gingrey for bringing us another proposal, 
one that makes sense economically, one that makes sense to get us out 
of this economic downturn that we are suffering under.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, if I may. Actually, I agree with 
everything you have to say.
  And the real point here is that the American people have common 
sense. We talk about all of this budgetary language here. If we are 
honest, it is confusing to us, and it is certainly confusing to the 
American people. But they understand that when they have a budget 
shortfall in their budget back home, they have either got to make more 
money, work harder and make more money, or they are going to have to 
save. And if they don't have the opportunity to make more money, they 
are going to have to cut back on something.
  Like I said a minute ago, you know, I have talked to people who say, 
I am sending my kid to a State school in Texas, which we are very 
blessed to have. They are expensive, but they are still reasonable, 
State schools. And, I have found that if my wife and I will just cut 
out buying our lunch every day at work and just take a sack lunch from 
home, we have got almost enough money to pay the tuition. We save 
almost enough money to pay the tuition.
  So the American people know how to budget. They know how to look at 
what they have got and what they have got to get, and figure out a way 
to make it work.
  So Dr. Gingrey's suggestion, which happens to be a suggestion of one 
of my constituents, too, is an outstanding suggestion because it 
basically makes sense. Sure as heck, if somebody puts the country at 
risk by their poor decisions on investing, then certainly don't let 
them get the benefit of a government program spending $1 trillion worth 
of taxpayers' money by letting them bail themselves out with a 5 
percent investment. I agree with that. That is perfectly good common 
sense. And I think every American in America would say, I don't want 
those guys that created these bad assets to be able to pay 5 percent of 
the value that they are going to set, understand that, and then get 50 
percent of the profits when they clean up those assets and sell them. 
And that is what is available potentially under the plan that has been 
put forward by Secretary Geithner.
  Now, if he will step up, and I think we owe a duty now to tell him 
the American people don't want that, so that he can make rules that say 
all you guys that bought all these bad assets, don't you come in here 
with your 5 percent and try to bail this deal out. We have other people 
who want to invest in it. And then a great idea would be let people who 
lost on their 401(k)s join investment pools and maybe invest in some of 
these that might make them good money. A 50 percent return on a 5 
percent investment is not a bad deal.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. CARTER. Yes, I will.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  You made a couple points that I would like to point out to the folks 
who are listening to us tonight, is that we have a proposal by the 
Democratic leadership, by Secretary Geithner and by the administration, 
that is going to continue to borrow and borrow and borrow. And who are 
they borrowing from? Short term, they are borrowing from China and 
other foreign entities; but long term, they are borrowing from our 
children and grandchildren.
  But, Judge Carter, you made an excellent point, a good commonsense 
point that people all over this country do when they have economic 
problems, and that is that they tighten their belt and stop spending. 
And that is exactly what the Federal Government needs to do. We need to 
live on a balanced budget, just like the American people do every day. 
Unfortunately, there is not much common sense around here in the 
Federal Government, and we just see this policy of borrowing and 
borrowing and borrowing. We are borrowing way too much. And all it is 
going to do is just continue us into a deeper and deeper hole, because 
you cannot borrow and spend yourself to prosperity. And I think that is 
a great point that you just made.
  And these assets, these so-called toxic assets have value, they have 
real value. They are not zero that the mark-to-marketing accounting 
rules require banks to mark them down to just because they don't have a 
market today.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time. I think we have made an excellent 
point here, as we both talked about; we came here because our good 
friend Louie Gohmert, my colleague from Texas, has a proposal that 
deserves to be heard. And so I am going to yield such time as my good 
friend Louie Gohmert may choose to use tonight, and I will just be here 
to try to help.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding, also a 
former judge. Actually, he served on the bench longer than I did. And, 
Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity to try to point out some of 
these things tonight.
  What struck me months ago was hearing that trillions and trillions of 
dollars were being committed on behalf of the Federal Government to try 
to help the economy recover. So I wanted to know how much money gets 
spent into the Federal Government by taxpayers just paying their taxes, 
ordinary individual taxpayers. And the answer we got was $1.21 trillion 
was what was expected to be paid from individual taxpayers for the 
entire year of 2008.
  So I am thinking $1.21 trillion, that is less than supposedly Fed 
Chairman Bernanke and Chairman Paulson and now Secretary Geithner are 
committing of our money. Can you imagine what would happen with the 
United States' economy if you just told all the taxpayers in America: 
No taxes. For the whole year of 2008, no taxes. And if you paid it, you 
are going to get it back; and if you haven't paid it yet, don't worry 
about it before April 15th, because you are getting all your money that 
you have already paid in.
  Can you imagine the cars that would be bought, the car dealers and 
the car manufacturers that would be bailed out by Americans choosing 
which car they wanted to buy? That was my thinking. That was the 
thought process.
  I got a message from Newt Gingrich; he liked the idea. He said, what 
would you do if you added FICA in there? Well, if you added FICA, that 
is $65 billion per month. You could have 2 months of allowing every 
American to get back every dime that was being withheld for Federal 
withholding, both FICA and individual income tax, and do that for 2 
months and still have spent less than the $350 billion that the Obama 
administration was looking to get from the half that was left over.

                              {time}  1945

  It turns out there was more than half left over. There may have been 
$450 billion from the original 750. We haven't got the final figures, 
which is another reason we all opposed that bailout back in September. 
It was a terrible idea because it was just too open-ended.
  So anyway, Human Events had an article, this was their headline, 
Nobody Pays Taxes For 2 Months, the Gohmert Tax Holiday Plan. Now one 
Texas conservative is challenging Congress and the White House with a 
commonsense plan that is much more likely to help our economy recover 
more than bank

[[Page 8775]]

bailouts or any handouts to car makers. Two months' break from income 
or withholding for all taxpayers. The total cost would be actually less 
than $350 billion. It is effectively a 70 percent tax reduction for a 
year.
  Also it was indicated by Moody's Economy, they did their own study 
and found that this idea would increase the 1-year gross domestic 
product more than any other plan that involved taxes. So I thought it 
was a good idea. And then I had my friend, Judge Carter from Texas, 
point out that apparently other people had beat me to the tax holiday 
idea.
  Mr. CARTER. I have been on the floor of this House talking about the 
fact that we need to resolve some ethics problems that are out there so 
that we can be sure that we feel comfortable trusting people that are 
making decisions around here. And then when my friend, Brother Gohmert, 
talked to me about his tax holiday, I realized that I've been talking 
about two tax holidays now for a month. Mr. Rangel took a tax holiday 
for $10,800 for 20 years. He didn't pay his taxes on his Dominican 
Republic rentals for 20 years. He took a tax holiday. And then when he 
finally ended up paying them, he didn't pay any penalty or any 
interest. So that's a tax holiday.
  Mr. GOHMERT. What gets interesting, CNN had this report and had the 
quote from our President. He said, ``I campaigned on changing 
Washington and bottom-up politics. I don't want to send a message to 
the American people that there are two sets of standards, one for 
powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day 
and paying their taxes.'' That was February 3, 2009.
  Well, here is a chart that indicates that may have been going on, 
anyway, in spite of what the President said. You have got some powerful 
people here that have taken a tax holiday for a number of years, no 
penalties, no interest, where on the other side you have ordinary folks 
who are paying their taxes, and that is the quote from our President, 
``ordinary folks who are paying their taxes,'' he said he didn't want 
two sets of standards. Well, we have had two sets of standards. They 
don't get any tax holiday. The leadership here has fought it tooth and 
nail. If you don't make your payments, there are no excuses. They come 
after you for the penalty and interest and all kinds of stuff to go 
with it. So, unfortunately, despite the assurances of the President, 
there are two standards that have been taking place here.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time for just 1 minute.
  That has been my exact point. And that is why I introduced 
legislation to put forward the Rangel Rule. And the Rangel Rule is very 
simple. Everybody that owes taxes that doesn't want to pay penalty and 
interest, just write at the bottom of your tax form ``exercising the 
Rangel Rule,'' and the IRS won't be able to charge you penalties and 
interest. They will have to treat you just like Mr. Rangel. I thought 
that was fair. And I thought I was being reasonable about that.
  Then we have the Secretary of the Treasury come along, and he took a 
4-year tax holiday on $43,200. Although he did pay some interest, he 
still hasn't had any penalty assessed against him either. So I guess we 
could change it to the Rangel-Geithner tax holiday or the Rangel-
Geithner Rule. But I just kind of like Rangel Rule. It has a nice ring 
to it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Let's call it the Rangel Dangle Rule. I like that better.
  It seems like people around here don't mind, there are a number of 
people around here that don't mind raising other people's taxes because 
they don't pay any themselves. So I compliment the gentleman. I 
appreciate your allowing me to throw in that. But I like your Rangel 
Rule. Can I do that?
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, you can certainly sign on to my 
Rangel Rule bill, and we are going to try to get that thing before this 
Congress, and we are going to start getting pretty serious about 
getting it done.
  Mr. GOHMERT. It is really ironic, but it has been about 30 years ago, 
back then, a comedian, he wasn't so much an actor back then, I think he 
had been with a group called the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. But he was out 
on his own as a comedian. Steve Martin was originally from Waco, Texas. 
He went to Waco High. Anyway, as part of his comedy schtick, he would 
say, you know, I'm going to write a book, ``How to Have $10 Million and 
Not Pay Taxes.'' And then he would lead the audience on. Well, they 
would want to know, how do you get $10 million and not pay taxes? He 
would eventually say, okay, okay, I'll let you in on the secret how you 
do it. First, you accept $10 million, which is pretty funny, because 
nobody just gets themselves $10 million unless you're a special person 
or something. And then he said, you just don't pay taxes. This is what 
Steve Martin said 30 years ago. Just don't pay taxes. And if they ever 
catch you, all you have to do is say, ``I forgot.''
  Now, 30 years later, it is basically what we are seeing. People, 
powerful people. We don't want two sets of standards, one for powerful 
people. Well, the powerful people are able to file their forms, and if 
they have not paid their taxes, then they could just write, yes, 
``Rangel Rule,'' or perhaps they could say, ``I forgot.'' Or ``it was 
just an honest mistake,'' or, the favorite one apparently of powerful 
people, ``Look, I used TurboTax. It's not my fault. TurboTax did that. 
I didn't do it.'' And then that saves you penalty and interest. So 
there ought to be a number of things, Rangel Rule perhaps, but TurboTax 
Rule. Maybe that would also free you up from interest or penalty on 
your taxes.
  I yield back to my friend.
  Mr. CARTER. And I thank you.
  We have got here, what's really interesting is when the IRS gives you 
the money to pay the taxes, and gives you a form that tells you you owe 
the taxes, and says, now here is the check, you're responsible for your 
own taxes, be sure and pay them, and you sign that form agreeing to pay 
them, and then you say, it was only $42,000, and I just forgot. I mean, 
that is kind of what like our friend, Mr. Martin, said.
  We make a little bit light of this, and we do that because, quite 
frankly, I don't want to be accused of being mean-spirited. But the 
facts are that we want people that are giving us ideas to save us from 
what could be an economic disaster. We want them to speak openly and 
honestly and come from a situation that we can trust them. And my whole 
issue that I have been raising are these issues of trust. I am not 
doing what has been done in the past and accusing people of being 
corrupt and that type of thing. I am not doing that.
  I am pointing out accusations made by other people. And I'm saying 
that these accusations need to be resolved so the American people can 
trust the folks they are counting on to fix this economy. And the head 
of the tax committee of the House of Representatives, they need to be 
confident they can trust him. Our Ethics Committee needs to finish the 
investigation and get that done. And if he is exonerated, wonderful. 
But the American people have the right to know. The Americans have the 
right to know, can they trust the Secretary of the Treasury when he 
doesn't pay his taxes and he says, ``TurboTax messed up''?
  First off, I kind of thought he was in a pay grade a little higher 
than TurboTax. But the point is, it's about trust. It is about the 
American people trusting the people they send here. That is why I 
continue to come up here every week and talk about these issues of 
lapse of memory or whatever it may be, and they need to be resolved by 
a finder of fact, whoever that may be, to resolve this issue.
  Let me yield to my friend from Georgia for a moment.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We were just speaking a few moments ago about many alternatives that 
have been presented to this House that would be in the private sector 
that wouldn't borrow from our grandchildren, and our good friend, Mr. 
Gohmert, with his Federal tax holiday, has provided us with a plan that 
would stimulate the economy and help hardworking Americans without 
growing the size of government.

[[Page 8776]]

  My friend from Texas serves as a constant reminder that we are 
spending the people's money and that policies like those supported by 
Secretary Geithner are just the most recent examples of policies from 
this administration that are not for the people, of the people, or by 
the people.
  Mr. Gohmert's plan is especially necessary as Secretary Geithner 
attempts to increase his power while moving away from the dollar, now 
that he is apparently open to moving the world economy towards an IMF-
controlled currency system. Maybe he was at IMF too long and he is 
embracing a world currency based on IMF. I believe that the Secretary 
of the Treasury needs reminding that we are part of a government that 
is directed by the Constitution of the United States.
  In fact, Congresswoman Bachmann just yesterday asked him where in the 
Constitution is the authority that he is wanting to claim and expand 
his powers? He couldn't answer that because there is none there.
  And that document, the Constitution, does not provide for any 
evolutionary changes in the Secretary's power without explicit 
Congressional approval, and, by extension, approval from the people of 
the United States.
  Right now, neither has granted such approval.
  This expansion of the powers of the Treasury Department is a cause of 
great concern and should be of great concern to every American. I was 
concerned when former Secretary Henry Paulson first started us down 
this path towards nationalization and government-run industries. And 
I'm even more concerned as I stand before the American public today and 
before this House today.
  There are many good and justified actions that Congress can take to 
get us back on the path to economic prosperity, like a Federal tax 
holiday of Mr. Gohmert's. But these recent developments, spearheaded by 
Secretary Geithner, are not only ill-advised, but they do not begin to 
fall into the realm of constitutional duties or authority.
  I hope and pray that there is economic success in America's near 
future. But I believe that any gains to be made will come in spite of 
the actions of Treasury Secretary Geithner and not because of them.
  It is my sincerest hope that people all over this great Nation will 
contact their friends, contact their family and contract their elected 
representatives to tell them to prevent the unconstitutional extension 
of the Secretary's power.
  I'm pleased that Mr. Gohmert has led the charge today to discuss 
these commonsense plans to restore power back to the people of this 
country, and I wish that congressional leaders would spend much more 
time considering our, the Republicans', commonsense alternatives that 
return power to the people instead of promoting the Treasury's grab for 
more and more power, particularly in view of the fact that it is 
unconstitutional and they have no constitutional authority to do that. 
I am very concerned about the Secretary's grab for power, 
nationalization of banks, nationalization of all businesses, such as 
they want to control AIG and others.
  We have got to stop it. We have a steamroller of socialism going on 
here. That steamroller of socialism is being shoved down the throats of 
the American people. It is going to strangle the American economy. It 
is going to choke the American people economically. That steamroller of 
socialism is being driven by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the President 
of the United States. And that steamroller needs a speed bump. It needs 
a stop sign.

                              {time}  2000

  And Mr. Gohmert's plan is an excellent plan. In fact, I'm a cosponsor 
of your bill. And I applaud this ingenious way of helping to stimulate 
the economy. And I'm also, should be a cosponsor of Judge Carter's 
bill, for the Rangel rule. I love it. I think it's a commonsense way of 
saying that everybody should be treated equal under the law. That's 
what the Constitution calls for. Everybody should be treated equal 
under the law. And if Mr. Rangel, Mr. Geithner, and others have the 
ability to do that, every American in this country should have the 
ability to write ``Rangel rule'' on the bottom of their tax form. And I 
love it. I think it's something that just puts a microscopic focus on 
the problem we have in this country today. The powerful, the elite, 
want to live in a way that all the other people in this country cannot, 
and it's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. And we must stop it. And I 
congratulate you, Judge Carter.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, and I thank you for those comments. 
Now I'd like to yield so much time as he chooses to consume again to my 
friend, Louie Gohmert from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I appreciate the time. And I appreciate your 
leading this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, it's good to have a chance to talk about these things. 
And I appreciate so much my friend from Georgia, Dr. Broun, points 
being made. And as he said, this is an incredible power grab that's 
going on.
  Now, we've had, made some light and been a little tongue-in-cheek 
tonight. But it's a little scary what's going on. And when you look at 
all the things that have happened so fast in 3 months, I'm telling you, 
I had no idea we could ever move this far this fast down the wrong 
road. And some say, a road to socialized, or to socialism like Europe, 
European socialism. It's not European socialism. It's socialism. That's 
what it is.
  And what I struggled with, as I heard our President saying not only 
are we going to make it harder to get energy, because for folks, Mr. 
Speaker, that might not know at home, today, we passed an omnibus land 
bill that was 170 different land bills combined into one, 100 of which 
or so that had not been properly through committee process and had the 
vetting they required. And so many of those put more and more land off 
limits to production of energy, took natural gas and oil away. It's 
going to help raise the price of gasoline at a time when people have 
lost their jobs, other people are cutting what they're willing to take, 
so that others will keep from losing their jobs. It is a tough time for 
many people.
  Now, I really feel like if the President would quit spreading the 
gloom and doom that our President did start--George Bush went out first 
and said, you know, depression's coming. But, good grief, you know, 
President Obama, with his gifts of communication, I thought, would help 
turn that around. Then he came in and also tried to set the bar low so 
it would be easier to get over it. Turns out that's been hurting the 
economy. Market's up a little bit this week, but good grief, at what 
price? Look at what's happened in the past.
  So then when I hear our President say, you know what? We're going to 
cut the amount you can deduct for charitable deduction. And as I heard 
him, as I heard a replay of the interview, he said, basically, that a 
deduction shouldn't be the reason that you make a contribution to a 
charity. Well, that's nice. But it encourages people to make charitable 
deductions. So we start demeaning people who are making charitable 
deductions. Goodness, they shouldn't be doing it just to get a--you 
shouldn't make charitable contributions to get a deduction. So you're 
going to belittle the people that are helping the charities, when most 
of us know it's the charities, after a disaster, that can move straight 
in and immediately start helping people, not only in this country, but 
in other countries around the world. But whereas the U.S. government, 
we have to go through the government in another country, and often, 
whether it's a famine or something, we've been propping up governments 
that had no business being propped up because we're trying to get 
charity to the people, whereas charities can run right in and take care 
of it.
  But anyway, I've struggled. Now, why would the President here, at 
this time when we're taking over AIG, taking over the car dealers, 
taking over Wall Street, why, at this time, would you choose to limit 
the deductible of charitable contributions?
  And then it hit me. It hit me. It's all about the GRE. All about the 
GRE. That's what all of this is about, the

[[Page 8777]]

GRE, the Government Running Everything. That's what it's about, the 
Government Running Everything. And that's what all of these things are 
about.
  You know, people in positions that should have known better, not 
paying taxes. People, I mean, Secretary Geithner, for goodness sakes. I 
was on a conference call with constituents. One lady I didn't know 
before the call was telling me she had just retired from the IRS. She 
said, IRS employees are incensed that they now have a boss who didn't 
pay his taxes when he knew he was supposed to.
  And she went on to say at one point, I'd gone over to the boats at 
Bossier City in Louisiana, and won $600. And when I went to file my tax 
return and filed it, I forgot I had gotten that $600 that I won over 
there. So I immediately filed an amended return. And because I was 
filing an amended return, under the IRS rules, she said, an IRS agent 
who underpays taxes, no ifs, ands or buts, there's no excuses. You're 
fired. That's it. No recourse.
  She said, I was being fired, and the only thing that saved me was my 
supervisor pointed out that I had not underpaid my taxes. I was getting 
money back, so the amended tax return didn't actually cause her to have 
to pay anything. Therefore, she was able to scramble, with her 
supervisor's help, and keep her job over $600, where she'd paid all the 
taxes that was due.
  But now, everybody else in the IRS has a boss that has done exactly 
what she was about to be fired for if she hadn't overpaid her taxes.
  It isn't right. And it appears that there are two standards already 
under this administration, one for powerful people, and then the other 
one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their 
taxes. That isn't right.
  And we don't need the government running everything. Look at what 
we've done. You know, the government should be about making sure 
there's a level playing field so everybody can play fairly. And then 
we're to provide for a common defense against enemies, foreign and 
domestic. That means cheaters. So if people are cheating out on the 
playing field, we move in, we go after them.
  But it turns out we have been so busy trying to tell auto makers how 
to make cars, trying to tell banks who they have to loan to, what they 
have to do, we have been so busy trying to tell everybody how to run 
their life, the government running everything, that we haven't been 
taking care of going after the cheats like Madoff. That should never 
have happened. I don't care which administration's in charge. 
Apparently it was going on under a lot more than one. It doesn't 
matter. The government needs to quit trying to run everything. Go after 
the cheats. Make sure everybody plays by the same rules, and if they 
don't, then punish them. But we should not be running everything, and 
that's what we see over and over.
  And I hope the American people will think about these things, Mr. 
Speaker, as they start seeing gas prices go higher and higher, at the 
very same time we're putting more and more of our energy, our own 
energy off limits. And we're making, having more and more dictation, 
this cap-and-tax, going to add thousands of dollars to people's budgets 
they have to pay when we've got a budget here running out of control. 
And it is deeply disconcerting.
  I know there are some people that are saying, well, maybe the 
American people will forgive the Republicans for overspending 
previously now that they've seen the Democratic majority has just more 
than doubled anything Republicans ever did, and give us another chance. 
I hope they will. I know those who were pushing the overspending before 
have learned their lesson.
  But the trouble is, I don't know how much more of this damage to the 
country we can survive for the next year and a half before the next 
election. But I appreciate the chance to point these out.
  And I would yield back to my dear friend, fellow former judge, Judge 
Carter.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, I thank Judge Gohmert, Congressman 
Gohmert, for a really heartfelt explanation of why he is trying to come 
up with alternative ideas. It's the same reason that Dr. Broun and I 
are trying to come up with alternative ideas. We just see this 
phenomenal number that is looming on the horizon of expenditures, and 
we can't help but be just absolutely scared to death as to what it 
means for our grandchildren. I don't have any right now, but, by golly, 
I plan to, and I want to make sure that when I do, that I'm not leaving 
them $100,000 a person debt, which is something that at least one of 
the pundits has said, that when they finish with this, every American's 
portion of the debt will be over $100,000. That's today, without any 
interest stacking up on it. What's it going to be for our grandchildren 
and our great grandchildren? Because, believe me, the kind of numbers 
that they, the Obama administration, is putting forward in 60 days, 
they've done almost $3 trillion. There's another trillion on the 
drawing board that we just heard about that we're going to bring out of 
the Fed, which is ultimately still got to be paid back. We're not even 
looking at the numbers that are over in the Fed. And then we've got a 
$3.6 trillion budget proposed, which supposedly is going to be crammed 
down our throats next week, without much participation on the side of 
the minority.
  So, yeah, we're worried. And yeah, that's one of the reasons that I 
come up here every week and talk about it's time for us to resolve 
these issues of trust. And I want to make it very clear, I sat here, 
when we were in the majority, in the chair that the Speaker's in 
sitting here tonight, and heard the term ``corruption'' used to every 
member of the Republican Party every single night. And I'll tell you, 
there were some people that deserved it. But the vast majority of the 
people didn't. And those issues got resolved, and they got it resolved 
in the Court and they got it resolved by the rules of the Republican 
conference.
  There's nothing resolving the issues that are being brought up. And 
there's lot more than I've talked about here today, and I will talk 
about those too, because nobody's accusing anybody of being corrupt, 
but somebody is saying there are accusations that should be resolved. 
And it's a trust issue.
  Can the American people trust our economy, trust our soldiers on the 
battlefield, trust our health care to people who have trust issues with 
the American people?
  And I think the American people should say, whoever's in charge of 
resolving it, resolve it. Tell us, is this something we should be 
concerned about? Because they are. Or shouldn't we be concerned about 
it?
  That's the reason I'm here. I think that's the reason Dr. Broun's 
here. We're here to say, these are serious issues, serious issues for 
the American people.
  I would like to have a little more time at the end. But I would like 
to yield some time to my friend, Dr. Broun from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Judge Carter. I appreciate your 
yielding.
  You brought up a whole lot of very, very good points here. The 
American people should not trust this budget that's being presented 
because all it's going to do, in my opinion, is deepen the depression 
or recession, and probably put us into a recession.
  I believe very firmly that if there is corruption, people should go 
to jail. If there are people who we cannot trust, as Congressman 
Gohmert was talking about, if an IRS agent can't be trusted, they're 
fired. The American people need to be firing people who can't be 
trusted.
  And we, as Republicans, are presenting a lot of things that the 
American people can trust in that look to the private sector, and will 
solve this economic problem. I applaud Congressman Gohmert's plan of a 
2-month tax holiday. That's the reason I very strongly endorsed his 
bill. In fact, I presented my own bill, or actually it was an amendment 
to that stimulus or nonstimulus, ``porkulus'' bill that we

[[Page 8778]]

had here. My idea was if the Democratic majority was so bent on 
spending $835 billion, let's just divide it amongst the American people 
who are taxpayers, legal resident taxpayers in this country, and bail 
them out, instead of bailing out Wall Street. And if you divide that 
out, per legal resident taxpayer, we would have sent every single legal 
resident taxpayer in this country right at $9,000. A couple would have 
got almost $18,000.

                              {time}  2015

  But the Democratic majority would not consider my amendment, one 
which makes sense and one which does not borrow from our grandchildren 
and put them in hock the way we see with this new budget coming forth 
on this floor next week.
  So I applaud you, Judge Carter, for bringing out these issues of 
trust. I know the American people did not trust Republicans, and they 
took us out of the majority in 2006. I was not here then. In 2008, they 
actually took more Republicans out of office.
  We have, I think, presented many things to the American people that 
they can look at, and they can trust the Republicans to bring forth 
ideas and to stand firm on good ethics. On the trust of the American 
people, we are presenting solutions after solutions that make sense 
economically and that do not borrow from our grandchildren, and 
hopefully, the American people will trust us.
  I just applaud what you are doing, Judge Carter. I yield back.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank you for your comments.
  I want to thank my friends for coming out tonight and for joining me 
in this hour of talk and discussion. I want to thank the Speaker for 
being patient with us tonight and for staying here with us, and I thank 
those who work to make a recording of what is said here, which I happen 
to know from long years of experience is a very difficult job, and I 
always have a lot of sympathy for the court reporters who have to take 
down people who talk like I do, so I want to give them some credit here 
tonight.
  I want to thank the American people. To those who did listen in, 
let's use some common sense, and let's get everything out on the table, 
and let's resolve any ethics issues we've got so that America can trust 
the people who are talking to them. If we talk straight and if we try 
to come up with straight ideas, I think the American people know that 
good, solid, commonsense ideas can fix things. I hope that they will 
participate in this representative form of government by contacting 
their Representatives and by making suggestions. I have gotten good 
ones from my constituents. They will send me more good ones, and I hope 
that everybody in America will contact their Representatives and will 
let them know how they feel about things and will give them the good 
ideas, because that is what a representative form of government is all 
about, and that is why we have a Republic. I am proud to be a small 
part of this Republic.
  With that, I would like to yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________