[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17539-17545]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS OF AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure and honor to be back 
here after our recess. Obviously there are matters of concern for all 
Americans. Obviously since we were here last, the voters have spoken, 
and spoken pretty loudly.
  But there are a number of things that concern Americans. There have 
been significant Tea Party groups and organizers here talking. It looks 
like those folks have found out that Americans have voices, and they 
can be heard.
  One of the great things I think that has been realized across America 
is once again it is being acknowledged that the people are the 
government. Every couple of years we have a hiring day to hire servants 
who will step up and do the will of the government, the people, as 
directed by the people.
  Well, they have forgotten for a while that hiring day is Election 
Day, and you shouldn't go into it unless you are properly prepared, as 
any good employer would be, by reading the resumes, talking to the 
candidates, doing interviews and seeing who would be the best hire to 
be the public servant from that area, the employee. Boy, their voices 
were heard this year.
  So it is quite reassuring. And I am pleased to work with folks across 
the aisle, I know we all are, to move forward with the things that the 
American people have once more said are very important.
  If you go back to November of 2006, you find out the people really 
haven't changed their opinion much. They made it clear in November of 
2006 that they were not going to tolerate the deficit spending that the 
Republican majority was doing. They didn't care who was in the 
majority. They still don't. They want the deficit spending to stop.
  They wanted it to stop in November of 2006, so they made their voices 
clear and said, okay, Democrats, you have promised us that if we make 
you the majority, you have promised to end the deficit spending, 
because the Republicans, my goodness, they have run $100 billion, $200 
billion deficits in one year. It was outrageous. Who knew that within 4 
years that a Democratic administration would be deficit spending done 
by Republicans on steroids, ten times the kind of deficit that was 
anticipated in one year. We can't continue as a country with that kind 
of spending going on. It has to be stopped.
  But we were hearing in the last week the cry of people across America 
too about this lame duck session. Now, it is nice, we had some lovely 
votes tonight: The Copyright Cleanup, Clarification, and Corrections 
Act; recognizing the 50th anniversary of Ruby Bridges desegregating a 
previously all-white public elementary school--very worthwhile; and the 
third vote tonight, honoring the 30th anniversary of the Bayh-Dole Act, 
which it sounds like most people don't know what that was.
  But, nonetheless, people are scared that it is going to get a lot 
more serious than that, because they made their voices heard in the 
election. We don't want people coming at us with that crap-and-trade 
bill and saying we are going to shove this down your throats like we 
did the health care bill. They didn't want the health care bill. They 
thought they made it clear, but they were not listened to.

[[Page 17540]]

  They made it clear they don't want the elimination of what my 
wonderful elementary, junior high, and high school teachers, who nearly 
all of them were supporters of the Democratic Party, taught. All of 
those teachers made clear in my growing up that a very important 
foundation in any democratic republic like ours is the secret ballot. 
Now we still have this bill out there, the card check bill, that will 
eliminate secret ballots.
  We can just think back in our own Chamber here to the race for 
majority leader between Steny Hoyer and John Murtha, the late John 
Murtha. Speaker Pelosi, speaker-to-be Pelosi had made clear she wanted 
John Murtha to be her majority leader. They seemed to have worked 
closely on the issue of bashing President Bush over the military 
operations and trying to stop him at every turn. In return, he was 
named speaker-to-be by Pelosi as her choice to be majority leader.
  Well, who in their right mind would go against someone who is clearly 
so adept at using political power as the gentlelady from San Francisco, 
if she knew who was going to go against her choice? But the fact is, 
like the Republican Caucus, the Democratic Caucus used a secret ballot, 
so the people in the Democratic Party after the November 2006 elections 
were free to choose the person they most wanted to be the majority 
leader, and that ended up being the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer.
  Had a similar card check bill been shoved through this Congress to 
force the Democratic Party to have the secret ballot eliminated, then I 
think you could anticipate that the late John Murtha would have been 
majority leader, and the will of the Democratic Members in this body 
would have been overwhelmed simply because such a primary component to 
a democracy was removed, the secret ballot.
  We don't need to remove the secret ballot so that might will make 
right, instead of right standing on its own. The ballot has to be 
secret in any organization in which anyone wants it to be secret. Take 
Robert's Rules of Order, of the requirement to have a secret vote.
  Of course, out here when we are doing the people's business, it can't 
be secret, because we are employees, we are servants, sent up here to 
do the people's will, so it shines up on the wall exactly how we vote 
when we vote.
  But one of the things that people should have learned after this 
November election, including Senators that are up for election 2 years 
from now, is if you jam another one of these bills down somebody's 
throat, the people's throats across America, as you did health care, 
you will be looking for a place to retire or another job.
  Now, one thing: If they do ram through the crap-and-trade bill as it 
passed through the House with 300 pages of amendments filed at 3-
something a.m. in the morning, where we didn't have time to read them 
all, I was able to get to the point in the bill, I think it was around 
page 900-something, where there was a fund created in there to help pay 
people who lose their jobs as a result of that bill. Although we heard 
from people across the aisle no one would lose their jobs as a result 
of that bill, it turns out the people that actually wrote that bill, 
whatever special interest group it was, perhaps Wall Street, because 
they are going to be engorged with riches if that bill passes and more 
union jobs will be lost, it will be a disaster for working America.

                              {time}  1930

  But whoever wrote it realized there are going to be a lot of good 
Americans lose their jobs if that bill passes. And if you go over a 
little further, there was a fund that would pay for moving expenses if 
people lost their job as a result of that bill and they could move 
within the United States to a place to get a job. Unfortunately, it 
didn't help people move to China and India and Argentina and other 
places where the jobs really moved.
  So the good news for those in the Senate perhaps helped by anybody in 
the House, if they try to ram that crap-and-trade bill through during 
this short lame-duck session then the good news is there is a provision 
in that bill that will help them with their moving expenses and perhaps 
to give them a subsidy until they find another job because there is no 
question there's going to be people lose their job as a result of that 
bill if they vote for it during this lame-duck session when the public 
has made very clear, Don't you dare. So we'll see what happens.
  But I see my good friend from Texas, also a former district judge, as 
was I, and I am proud to yield such time as he may use to my good 
friend from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. I appreciate your yielding time, Judge Gohmert. 
Yes, on November 2 the American public, the American people, the 
American voters went to the polls and they voted. And it's a good thing 
that they vote, and we have the right to vote. As you mentioned, Judge 
Gohmert, the right to vote in this country is sacred. And we should 
always treat it that way to make sure that in all elections that the 
voting box and the voting ballot are sacred and only valid voting takes 
place anywhere in the United States.
  I heard a lot of comments, as did many Members of Congress--probably 
all Members of Congress--during the recess before the election, and one 
of the biggest concerns was the runaway spending that the government 
seems to be addicted to. And it seems to be an addiction of spending 
somebody else's money--the taxpayers' money--people who work every day 
and go out and try to support their families.
  One startling statistic, Mr. Speaker, is that for every dollar that 
the government spends on something, whether it's a good project or it's 
a worthless project, for every dollar the government spends, forty-two 
cents of that dollar is borrowed money. So we don't have the money. The 
bank is broke. And we can't print it fast enough. So we have to borrow 
the money. Forty-two cents on every dollar. Now that's kind of hard to 
understand how much that is, but that's a lot of money. Almost half of 
what we spend is borrowed money. But that forty-two cents amounts to 
approximately, every year, just on the interest payment of that forty-
two cents, $600 billion. That's with a B. Now we're talking about real 
money--$600 billion.
  The war in Iraq I understand so far has cost up to $720 billion total 
for the entire Iraqi war. But yet just the interest American taxpayers 
have to pay on that forty-two cents is around $600 billion every year. 
And, of course, who does that money go to? It goes to our good friends, 
the Chinese, who own most of our debt. And there are other countries 
that we borrow money from, too. It puts us in a bad national security 
position when we have to go overseas and ask countries to lend us some 
more money. The American public, I think, is tired of those days and 
want the borrowing, the spending, and of course the taxes to all stop 
where they are. I hope Members of this body in January have heard the 
American people and that we get our house in order and we quit spending 
somebody else's money and reduce the size of government, get government 
out of our lives, and have government work for us instead of work 
against us, as so many people have said.
  One of the other two things that I heard during the recess, or the 
break, before the election was the concern that people had about this 
lame-duck session, that we are now a part of the lame-duck session 
where we have come back and there's a lot of legislation that hasn't 
been addressed, and people are concerned about Members of Congress on 
both sides of the aisle who have been defeated still here to vote on 
legislation even though the public has not returned them for the next 
Congress. Maybe one thing that we need to do in future Congresses on 
election year, the Federal election year, the even year, that the 
session of Congress end on election day, therefore there is no lame-
duck session because Congress adjourns on election day and doesn't 
return until the following January. Therefore, we prevent some of the 
concerns that people all over the country have mentioned about people 
returning in both parties who have been defeated in their elections.

[[Page 17541]]

  The third issue, of course, as you know, Judge Gohmert, in Texas, 
although the economy was the number one issue for most people in the 
United States, in our State the number one concern among voters was the 
lack of border security with our neighbors in Mexico. And we've heard 
all of the recent cases of Americans being murdered just on the other 
side of the border. And, of course, there are Mexican nationals that 
are getting murdered as well. And they're not all members of the drug 
cartel or affiliated with the drug cartel. They're just good folks 
trying to earn a living as well, but they get in the way of the drug 
cartels. And it seems to me that this is a national security issue. And 
people who say that the border is secure, I invite them to go with me 
down to the Texas-Mexico border and then you can make up your mind 
firsthand.
  Of course, earlier we talked about the situation on Falcon Lake, this 
massive lake. Nobody is on the lake on either side of the border 
because it's not safe. The safest thing on Falcon Lake are the fish 
because nobody's out there fishing and those bass are probably getting 
rather large by now. And that's an unfortunate situation for not only 
Americans but Mexican nationals as well.
  And we also now hear that we have the extortion racket taking place 
on the American side. There are reports that Americans of Hispanic 
descent living on or near the American border are being extorted of 
money to protect some relative they have on the other side of the 
border. And that protection racket is being run, we understand, by, of 
course, the drug cartels.
  So you've got money and guns going south of the border and you've got 
people and drugs coming north of the border. And their operational 
control of the border is by the drug cartels. You see, the Mexican 
Government doesn't protect their border any better than we do because 
that's how come guns can get in. Of course, I don't know if the Mexican 
Government complains about the money coming south of the border or not. 
But either way, that money is illegally going back into Mexico by the 
drug cartels.
  So what do we need to do? I think we ought to put more boots on the 
ground. The Border Patrol does as good a job as we'll let them do, but 
they need some help. It is a national security issue, and we need to 
put the National Guard on the border and allow them to do their job to 
prevent people from coming into the United States, especially the drug 
cartels, who have operational control of portions of the Texas-Mexico 
border and other portions of the border in Arizona, New Mexico, and 
California as well.
  To show you how serious and how dangerous it is to be living or be in 
one of the cities in Mexico near the border, you've got in El Paso--and 
I don't know, Mr. Gohmert, if you were stationed at Fort Bliss or not--
but you have Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, a military base where our 
troops come and go from Fort Bliss to Iraq and Afghanistan. They go off 
to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They come back to Fort Bliss, but they 
cannot cross the river and go into Juarez, Mexico, because it's off 
limits to people in the military. So we send our young men and women 
off to war, but they can't cross the river into our neighbor's country 
because it's too dangerous. And that's an unfortunate situation not 
just for Americans but certainly an unfortunate situation for Mexican 
nationals who just want to survive on their side of the border as well.
  So it's become a national security issue. It is an issue of great 
concern to people along the border. And I hope more Americans 
understand how the border has become in places a place of really no-
man's land except for the drug cartels who shoot their way across the 
border and shoot anybody that gets in their way.
  And I will yield back.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. GOHMERT. As I'm sure my friend knows, Juarez, just across the 
border from El Paso, which you've been discussing, is now called the 
murder capital of the world. There were 2,600 deaths in one year, last 
year, in Juarez. We didn't have that many American soldiers die in Iraq 
in a year. Yet right across the border from El Paso, right across the 
little river, is Juarez, the murder capital of the world. It is 
outrageous.
  I never had the opportunity to be stationed at Fort Bliss. I had 
friends in the Army who were, and they always enjoyed Fort Bliss. I was 
at Fort Benning for my 4 years that I owed the military for my 
scholarship at A&M. It is amazing to me that we have the greatest 
military in the world, in the history of the world--they're the best 
equipped, the best trained military in history--and yet you go look at 
our border, at specifically the 32-mile stretch in Arizona that is 
national park area on the north side--Mexico is on the south side--and 
it's wilderness area. It's considered such. It's classified in the U.S. 
as wilderness area. So you can't take a vehicle. You can't take 
anything mechanical. The only people who use vehicles in that area are 
the violent drug smugglers. Then this administration, instead of 
helping Members of Congress and the President keep his oath--we're not 
providing a defense against all enemies foreign and domestic--they're 
putting up signs that, in essence, say, This area is used by violent 
drug smugglers who are illegally in our country, so we would recommend 
that American citizens use parks north of Interstate 8.
  Excuse me. This is American soil. When anyone armed attacks American 
soil, it's an act of war. We've got people who are coming into the 
United States who have taken over part of our property, and the best 
this administration can do is put up a sign that says, Why don't you 
American citizens use the area north of Interstate 8 because we've just 
given this over to drug smugglers.
  The only good news I see out of that is, for so long, I've been 
greatly concerned with the hypocrisy of this administration and its 
telling Israel, Just let Palestinians build illegal settlements and 
take over areas that are not theirs. Just let them take over. I thought 
how hypocritical for our U.S. administration to tell Israel, Just let 
people take over areas of your country they're not authorized to take 
over, because we would never allow that here in the U.S.
  This brings me to the only good thing about violent illegal alien 
drug smugglers taking over American soil: At least we're not 
hypocritical anymore when we tell Israel just to let people take over 
land that's not theirs, because now this administration can say, Look, 
Israel. We're doing it here. We're letting people take over American 
soil that they shouldn't, so you can do it, too.
  The fact is, of course, it shouldn't happen in either place. We have 
taken an oath to defend this country, this Constitution, against all 
enemies, foreign and domestic, and that includes illegal drug smugglers 
who are armed to the teeth at our border regions. We have an 
obligation. We took an oath.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOHMERT. I will yield to my friend.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Well, I think that the current plan really is a 
two-part plan. The plan isn't just to erect a few signs in Arizona, 
saying, We can't take care of you. Travel north of Interstate 8 and, as 
you mentioned, really secede the land south of Interstate 8 to the drug 
cartels. That may be part of the plan. That's plan A of a two-part 
plan.
  Plan B, though, is: We're also, as the government, going to sue 
States that try to defend themselves.
  So put up some signs and sue States that try to protect their 
citizens, like the State of Arizona, where both of these incidences are 
occurring.
  I think it is tragic that the United States Government has gone to 
court and has spent who knows how much taxpayer money in suing a State 
that wants to protect the people of that State and wants to enact State 
laws that do what the Federal Government is supposed to do but which 
obviously it won't or cannot do.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I appreciate your bringing that point up. I 
overlooked part B of that plan, but that's

[[Page 17542]]

what has happened, and that's a great point.
  As my friend knows--but perhaps the Speaker is not aware--Judge Poe 
was one of the best known and probably would have been one of the best 
known judges, purveyors of justice, in all of Texas history, and I know 
my friend, Judge Poe, knows all about the case of Terry v. Ohio.
  From that case, we got what law officers were taught to be a Terry 
Stop, which is where they can stop people and get identification. If 
anybody cares to go back to the sixties and read that opinion and then 
read the Arizona law, they'll actually find out that what Arizona 
passed is not near as intrusive as what a Terry Stop can be. I mean 
they've got guards within that bill that keep it from even reaching the 
extent of a full Terry Stop and of the authorization of law officers to 
use a Terry Stop.
  So I've just been intrigued. Here you have an administration that 
refuses to follow the law, refuses to defend the law, refuses to defend 
sovereign American territory, and then takes that added step, as my 
friend points out, and sues a State that is just trying to protect its 
citizens.
  It is heartbreaking, as I know my friend and I have tried kidnapping 
cases, to find out that an American city is the second biggest capital 
for kidnappings in the world--Arizona. You would think that any 
President who is trying to do his duty to this country would be 
outraged that people were being kidnapped in numbers in Phoenix which 
were bigger than in known organized crime refuges around the country.
  Phoenix, Arizona?
  You would think a President would come riding to the rescue, and all 
America would thank him and be grateful that they had elected a man who 
would come in and follow his oath and protect them from having a city 
in his country in which so many people are kidnapped. We are hearing 
every day about ransoms being demanded after kidnappings in Third World 
areas and in the Middle East. We heard on the news this morning about 
another kidnapping incident and ransom and about a ransom being paid. 
Yet it's not halfway around the world. It's going on in Arizona.
  Then, as my friend pointed out earlier in his 5-minute speech about 
the poor Mexican investigator who gave his life just trying to look 
into the murder of an American citizen on Falcon Lake, I mean what does 
it take to provoke a President to fulfill his duty to protect this 
country? I really don't know. If that doesn't do it, what does it take?
  Mr. POE of Texas. Yes. Investigator Rolando Flores, from Mexico, had 
just started the investigation into the death and murder of David 
Hartley when he was beheaded. Of course, when the Zetas and other drug 
cartel members behead someone and then throw his body in a place like 
in front of the police station or city hall, it's to send a message.

                              {time}  1950

  And they sent a message and they sent a message first to the 
Government of Mexico: Back off, Falcon Lake is ours. And 5 weeks later, 
it looks like the Mexican government backed off. No one's ever been 
held accountable for that homicide. The body was never found of David 
Hartley, and so that was the warning of unfortunately an obviously good 
man, Investigator Rolando Flores, but it was also a message to the 
United States, that Falcon Lake belongs to them. It doesn't belong to 
Mexico. It doesn't belong to the United States. But portions of it, 
right there in the middle, have operational control by the Zetas at 
night, and it belongs to them.
  Apparently, that message has gotten to our government as well because 
5 weeks later it doesn't seem like anything has occurred to improve the 
situation. In the meantime, more people, Mexican nationals and American 
citizens, have been murdered on the border on the Mexican side. I would 
hope that we won't need more people being murdered, regardless of their 
nationality, on the border to get the attention of most Americans and 
Members of this House that this is a national security issue. It goes 
back to the basics that it is the government's responsibility to 
protect the country, and I don't see, in my opinion, that we are 
protecting the people of the United States by the way the border is 
insecure, and we need to do whatever is necessary to secure our side of 
the border and our sovereignty and also to help Mexico rid itself of 
the corruption that it has in the government and in law enforcement.
  It's a tough job to be over there and be an honest cop. We need to 
help them as well and work both sides because we have a mutual 
responsibility I think with Mexico and they with us to protect the 
safety of Americans and Mexican nationals who live along the border.
  I'm sure you've traveled there, as well as I have, and when you go to 
those small towns, people are afraid. They're just afraid, and nobody 
should have to live that way in fear of some narco-terrorist coming 
across whenever they want to with automatic weapons, bringing those 
drugs into the United States, and then, whenever they want to go back, 
they just cross back into Mexico because the Mexican government has the 
same issues we do about insecure borders.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate my friend mentioning that, and certainly I 
know he travels to the border area of United States with Mexico on the 
Texas line, but just from personal example, I am routinely, at least 
once a year, down in that area. And for years, anytime I was down near 
Laredo with friends, we would cross the border into Nuevo Laredo and 
get some great Mexican food and walk around, and you could get some 
real bargains of different things around there. So my family always 
knew, when I came back from the area, I was going to bring back gifts 
from Nuevo Laredo, and yet I know at least in the last 10 years we have 
not crossed over into Nuevo Laredo. All the indications are that you 
just don't do that anymore; it's too risky.
  So I would like to get back to the point where our friends to the 
south had safe enough areas where we could go back and forth without 
worrying about it, but it's not to that point right now.
  I would also submit, I know there are people who have said repeatedly 
in the last year, we really wish that both sides of the aisle would 
work together, but now we've seen, you know, somebody is just not 
protecting the country, not protecting our sovereignty and our land, 
running up a $1.6 trillion deficit in 1 year, doing all those things. 
We understand you have got to fight that and it can't be bipartisan if 
one side is just insistent on doing that.
  But I have a strong feeling that my friend, Judge Poe, and I would 
absolutely agree that if this President stepped up and said this 
situation will not stand where violent people on the Mexico-United 
States border intimidate, kill, kidnap, come across into our side, 
bring poison through drugs into America, we will not let that stand, I 
wouldn't care that he's a Democrat. I would stand up and give the 
greatest standing ovation, do anything we could to help and support a 
President doing the job he was sworn to. And I hope and pray that this 
President doesn't wait for someone to replace him in 2 years, that he 
will step up and say, you know, folks, I know I haven't done it in the 
past and I've let the violence go on too long, but it comes to an end 
and here's what we're going to do to stop it and step up and actually 
stop it. I have a feeling my friend wouldn't care either what party he 
was from. We would be in total support and do anything we could to help 
him.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Yes, of course, this is an issue that's not 
partisan issue. As my friend, former Sheriff Rick Flores has said, this 
is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is a red, white, and blue 
issue. He used to be a border sheriff in Laredo.
  There are those who say, well, the answer is this, don't go to 
Mexico; it's too violent so don't go down there. Well, first of all, I 
don't think that's a realistic point of view, in other words, it's okay 
for people in Mexico to be violent and the drug cartels to have

[[Page 17543]]

their way and try to run roughshod over the Mexican military and law 
enforcement. I think that's an insensitive comment regarding our 
neighboring country, Mexico. They are our neighbors. We ought to be 
concerned about what takes place down there.
  But also that comment is a lack of understanding of the border 
culture. The border culture, especially in Texas and I'm sure this is 
true in Arizona, New Mexico and maybe California, goes back hundreds of 
years where there is cross-border travel, and we need and want cross-
border travel. I think we should have legitimate travel across our 
border into Mexico and Mexico into the United States as long as it's 
verified that the people are coming in with permission.
  But many families have citizens who live in Mexico and Mexican 
nationals and American nationals and they're related and they want to 
go back and forth across the border, and this type of attitude, well, 
don't go into Mexico, that's just telling family members on this side, 
you can't go see relatives on the other side. And that is not the 
situation we want to be in and to say that that's their problem, it's 
not our problem. It is our problem because we need to be good neighbors 
and we need to help in every way we can to secure the border. When we 
have a secure border, it helps not only the United States but it also 
helps Mexico as well.
  We should be concerned about the violence in Mexico, not just because 
it's coming over into the United States, because it does affect Mexican 
nationals and it affects Mexican nationals who have relatives and 
family members on the American side of the border. So it is a complex 
issue, and verified border security, making sure that people don't 
cross without permission, is something that we have talked about for a 
long time in this Congress. And as my grandfather used to say, When all 
is said and done, more is said than done and not much has happened.
  So we secure the border first, and then we work on those other 
issues, but it's certainly something that I think is a national 
security issue. I wish we had stronger leadership from our government 
to secure that southern border of the United States because a lot of 
good people on both sides of the border are losing their lives because 
of the government's failure to act, other than put up some signs and 
sue States that try to defend and protect their citizens because the 
government doesn't.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I appreciate so much that perspective from my 
friend from Texas, Judge Poe. It is outrageous what's going on. It is 
outrageous that we're allowing that kind of danger to permeate our 
border and we do nothing about it. It's time to get something done.
  One other issue that I would like to get into in the remaining 20 
minutes that we have here tonight is the tax rates. I heard my friend 
across the aisle taking that up in a 5-minute speech he gave earlier 
tonight, and he was saying that Republicans want to cut the current tax 
rate for the highest wage earners to 35 percent.

                              {time}  2000

  I have great respect for my friend. But the fact is, the highest tax 
rate right now is 35 percent. What we are trying desperately to avoid 
is the biggest tax increase in American history.
  Now, Art Laffer--I think one of the most brilliant economists in the 
United States--did an incredible job in helping President Reagan steer 
our economy out of an economy worse than we have now. Because I 
remember well, during my time in the Army, we had more than 10 percent 
unemployment, we had more than 10 percent inflation, and interest rates 
were far above 10 percent. It was a rough time in America. And yet with 
Art Laffer's advice and guidance, President Reagan was able to turn the 
economy around completely within 3 years.
  If President Reagan had taken Art Laffer's advice and in 1981 had cut 
taxes 30 percent, as Art Laffer points out, we could have had the whole 
economy turned around in '81. But since the Democrats had the majority 
and President Reagan had to negotiate to get to a 30 percent tax cut--
and that full 30 percent didn't kick in until the last 20 percent was 
added to the 10, and the half-percent from the 2 years before--in 1983, 
the full 30 percent kicked in, and that's when the economy recovered. 
If we had done the full 30 percent in 1981, the recovery would have 
been then. It would have saved 2 years of absolute disaster 
economically in this country. But we didn't do that.
  And, as Dr. Laffer pointed out back in January of this year to a 
small group of us, he felt like, by November, there would be signs of a 
recovery because on January 1, unless we do something quickly, the 
biggest tax increase in American history would take place. Capital 
gains would go up by 33\1/3\ percent from 15 to 20 percent. It will 
absolutely devastate this economy. Every marginal rate goes up. The 
death tax comes back in full from 0 to 55 percent. So his comment, as I 
understood him, was that it would look like a recovery because people 
were starting to sell things and cash things out and get in a position 
for the biggest tax increase in American history on January 1. And it 
would look like a recovery, but it wouldn't be a real recovery. It's 
just people trying to get in position, take gains now this year before 
this massive tax increase.
  So with respect and due deference to my friend, we're not talking 
about a tax cut here. We're talking about keeping the same tax rates. 
If my friends across the aisle--as the majority until the end of the 
year--were willing to talk about a true tax, a drop of 35 percent to 
30, that would be fantastic. Because we know from history, when 
President Kennedy did it, President Reagan did it, President Bush did 
it, every time there was a meaningful tax cut, the Treasury of the 
United States exploded. It went higher than it had ever gone before 
each time.
  The problem was not in lowering the taxes, which increased the 
economy--it gave people more income. That was not the problem. The 
Treasury was bigger than it had ever been. The problem was that we 
began to spend money like we had never spent before, and each time we 
got into higher deficits because we weren't controlling spending. Had 
we increased the revenue by cutting taxes and controlling spending, we 
would have had a balanced budget immediately. It would have been 
fantastic. But that's not what happened. We have seen that in Ireland. 
They had a tax decrease previously, years ago, and manufacturing jobs 
flooded into Ireland. But they didn't control their spending as they 
should, and now they're in trouble. So that's the key, control 
spending.
  And I know there are those who say, We should go back to 2008 for the 
budget. I'm not one of those people because I remember as a freshman in 
2006 being beat up by people across the aisle because we were spending 
way too much money. And since I know we could go back and capture 
speeches from the Record of friends across the aisle who said we were 
spending far too much money in 2006, we needed to cut that deficit 
spending. Since I know people across the aisle said that, then I submit 
humbly we go back to the 2006 budget, the one they complained about, 
saying it was spending too much money. We go back to that one. If it 
was spending too much money, then surely there couldn't be much 
objection across the aisle. If we're going back to that one, that they 
said spent too much money--of course that was before the ensuing 
budgets that the Democratic majority produced, which doesn't include 
this year when they didn't live up to the requirement to produce a 
budget. But these more recent budgets were just deficit spending on 
steroids, and it's got to stop. Solution, go back to 2006.
  You know, since my wife and I cashed out our assets, retirement 
accounts and all, for us to run for Congress, you know, that's what 
responsible people do when you have to pay things. You cash out assets. 
I agree with Art Laffer. It's time to start cashing out the things we 
bought as a government that we had no business, if we're a true free 
market country, of ever buying. We divest ourselves for a big price of 
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. We divest ourselves of the car company 
ownership we currently have. There's

[[Page 17544]]

no way that's not a socialist activity when the government takes over 
private enterprise.
  And I know the President has such close friends in the current 
Speaker, and our friends across the aisle have such dear friends on 
Wall Street, and that's why they donated four to one--four times more 
to the President, current President and the Democratic majority, than 
they do to Republicans. I get it. They're the friends. They work 
together. In fact, they're such close friends, the guys on Wall Street 
don't mind so much when the President and the Democratic majority bash 
their friends over and over and over here in Washington because their 
friends know that's the price. Getting bashed verbally allows them to 
keep funneling money in massive amounts to Wall Street, including 
through the Federal Reserve, including managing government money so 
that Goldman Sachs, of course, was able to have the biggest profit in 
their history last year. Who knows how good it was this year. Good for 
Wall Street, good for Goldman Sachs. Heck, their investment of giving 
four times more to this President and the Democratic majority than they 
do Republicans paid in droves for them. It just was great. It may be 
another banner year for them now, but it's got to stop. Americans are 
getting hurt across the country. It's got to stop.
  And so one of the other things we've seen--people don't remember so 
much--but in January of 2009 when this President took over and the 
Democratic majority in this House had had a 2-year headstart, and 
because of the terrible example set by the prior Republican President 
in pushing through a $700 billion Wall Street bailout, they were able 
to push through what was thought to be about an $800 billion stimulus, 
porkulus, whatever one may wish to call it, which turns out now $900 
billion, maybe $1 trillion. We're still not sure. It's through the 
roof. People notice that. It made voters irate, and they showed that in 
November of this year.
  But most people didn't notice the next week, the $400 billion land 
omnibus bill. What does that mean? It means the Federal Government was 
going to take $400 billion and buy more land.

                              {time}  2010

  The Federal Government already owns more than half of the land west 
of the line through Texas to North Dakota. And yet they want to buy 
more land. When you run a deficit that this administration has been 
running, then it's time to say, you know what, we shouldn't be buying 
land.
  And we haven't found out yet just how much of that $400 billion has 
been squandered buying land, doing sweetheart deals with people they 
want to do them with and buying their land. But whatever has been 
bought ought to be sold. Whatever has not been spent needs to be cut 
off.
  Some have said, well, where would you get the $700 billion to avoid 
raising these massive taxes?
  They don't get it. They need to check the current news articles about 
States and cities that have raised taxes on wealthy people, like I will 
never be, but raised taxes on them. They ended up losing money by 
raising taxes, which takes you back to the Laffer Curve. You can only 
raise the taxes so much, which keeps increasing the Federal revenue. 
But once you cross that threshold where you've taxed too much, and you 
add tax beyond that, then you've hurt the economy and the tax revenue 
decreases.
  So my friends across the aisle may try, in this lame-duck session, to 
do the unthinkable and raise taxes on people, force taxes to go up by 
playing a class warfare game, playing the game that our Founders 
detested because all Americans were Americans. No Americans were 
hyphenated back then. They were just Americans; which is why, on our 
great seal, the ribbon on the eagle's mouth has three Latin words, E 
Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one. We come together as one.
  It's time to stop the class warfare. It's time to stop. It's time to 
stop luring young women into a rut from which they can never get out by 
saying, come on, come on, keep having babies out of wedlock, we'll keep 
paying you for them, and you'll get to a level of income as a single 
mom, with children, that will never go up. You have no hope of getting 
out of that hole. That's what we saw for 30 years from the Great 
Society legislation to the mid-90s, until welfare reform took place.
  Cast it any way you want to, but the fact is, when welfare reform 
took place, for the first time in 30 years, single women with children 
had income that, when adjusted for inflation, went up, went up 
dramatically.
  And now the unthinkable has occurred this year in the ObamaCare bill. 
They included the rescinding of the welfare reform that was done by the 
Republican--new Republican majority in the 90s. It was taken away.
  We have now sentenced young women, single moms, desperate to get out 
of their rut, to remain in their rut for the rest of their lives, or 
until such time as we remove those enslaving provisions from the 
ObamaCare, and allow single moms with children to once again get back 
on the uphill climb with making more income after adjusted for 
inflation than they had in the 30 years before with the Great Society 
legislation.
  I know it was well intentioned back in the 60s. I get it. I 
understand that. It was because of hearts full for young women trying 
to raise children with deadbeat dads that wouldn't contribute. I get 
that. But what was done instead was sentence these sad situations to a 
hole they couldn't get out of.
  It's time to do what a government is supposed to do. I know some 
don't believe in the Bible, but, for those that do, you look at Romans 
13. A government is different from individuals. It's not to turn the 
other cheek. It's not to steal people's money by passing a law that 
allows you to steal their money against their will and give it to 
charities that only the government supports. That's not part of it.
  It is supposed to protect the people, punish evil, and really 
incentivize good conduct and to help people reach their potential. 
Instead of enslaving young women, as the Great Society legislation did, 
good grief, we should have incentivized them to finish their education.
  Instead of having 99 weeks of unemployment insurance to pay people 
not to work, and, yes, I know there are people who are out of work who 
have been trying for hours and hours every day to find new employment, 
but the overall studies don't indicate that that's the average. That's 
the exception. Generally, people only spend less than an hour a day or 
less than an hour a week until the last couple of weeks of their 
unemployment, then they begin to seek employment.
  If we're going to do what some would consider the biblical approach 
of government, to punish evil but reward and incentivize good conduct, 
then we would eliminate the marriage penalty. Why penalize marriage?
  And we would incentivize people finishing their education, not paying 
them to have babies out of wedlock and not to finish school. We would 
be incentivizing them to reach their God-given potential before it's 
too late. That's what a caring government does. That's what it should 
do. That's what it ought to be about. End the class warfare.
  Now, I was asked recently, well, now, you've advocated eliminating 
the Department of Education. And yet you've also talked about schools 
ought to provide vocational training. Right on both counts. $68 billion 
budget, throw another $10 billion in there this year, and for what? 
Pays the Department of Education, have lots and lots of bureaucrats, 
take a hunk of the money for themselves, dole out the rest.
  And I get it. I've got friends, Republicans, Democrats on school 
boards across the country who've said we've become so enslaved, so 
reliant on Federal money, we'll be broke as a school system if you cut 
off the funds immediately.
  So what I think would be more fair, would be more constitutional is 
just say, we eliminate the Department of Education, and then we'll take 
that money and we will have a formula to

[[Page 17545]]

distribute it to the schools across the country. And they'll get a lot 
more money. And then over, say, a 5-year period--I'm flexible--we could 
compromise on what would be a good way to do it. You provide a formula 
that the States and the people, under the 10th Amendment, pick up their 
obligation to support education and take it away from the Federal 
Government. We cut the required contributions to other areas, whether 
it's Medicaid or something else. We incentivize them to take over their 
constitutional obligation. Since education's not an enumerated power 
under the Constitution, it's reserved under the 10th Amendment to the 
States and people.
  Let the local control take over, because when there was no Federal 
control and when I was going through school, high schools had 
vocational training. You didn't have to go to college to make a great 
living. You could study auto repair at our high school. You could learn 
to be a carpenter. You could learn to weld. You could learn all kinds 
of great trades and go immediately into a good job, and you're way 
ahead in income than those people that went to college. In four or five 
years eventually they catch up and went further with the money they 
received. But they were great livings. And we need people doing those 
jobs.
  And one final comment as my time is about to expire: I heard Donald 
Trump say on Greta Van Susteren that the solution is to put a 25 
percent tax on everything we buy from China. I couldn't believe it. 
You're going to start a trade war with somebody we owe over $1 trillion 
to? You think that's smart? You don't realize we'll lose great jobs, 
union jobs, nonunion jobs across America?

                              {time}  2020

  How about, instead, doing something that doesn't trigger a trade war, 
that doesn't cause us to be penalized around the world? How about, 
instead, eliminating the 35 percent tariff we put on our own products 
for people in other countries trying to buy them? It is called a 
corporate tax.
  If you eliminate the 35 percent tariff we have got on our own 
products, union jobs and nonunion jobs will come flooding back into 
America, because we could compete with anybody if you take off that 
insidious tax that tells people across America: You don't have to pay 
it; the evil corporations will pay it.
  Those corporations pass it on. If they don't, they don't stay in 
business. Yet they have lost jobs across this country, union jobs and 
nonunion jobs, flooding across to other nations because of the tariff 
of 35 percent we slap on our own products, making them uncompetitive.
  It is time to get this country competitive again. Bring back the jobs 
to America in the way that we know best, as a free market society, at 
the same time we protect our borders and stop the crazy deficit 
spending.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________