[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 927-931]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      PRESIDENT'S PRAYER BREAKFAST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, well, this has been a good day 
legislatively in the United States House of Representatives, and there 
are a lot of good things to be said about what's happened today.
  Yesterday, there was a wonderful event; it's called the President's 
Prayer Breakfast here in Washington, and the President was gracious 
enough--and I'm not being sarcastic. He was gracious enough to once 
again extend his presence with the First Lady, who is also extremely 
gracious and represents us well as the Nation's First Lady. It was a 
marvelous breakfast held north of the Capitol.
  There were so many moving, touching things that were said and done, 
from having an 11-year-old girl that sings like an angel, bless us, and 
also having an amazing speaker, the author of a book ``Amazing Grace,'' 
the William Wilberforce story, as well as ``Bonhoeffer'' from Germany. 
He was funny, he was inspirational, he was touching.
  One of the things that's been such a blessing over the 7 years I've 
been in Congress has been on Thursday mornings, 8 o'clock to 9 o'clock, 
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle come together for an 
hour of sharing breakfast, sharing our Christian faith, listening to 
prayer requests, praying, singing hymns of faith, and hearing on an 
alternating basis from Republican and Democrat.
  I know people hear what goes on on the floor and assume that Members 
on one side of the aisle must absolutely hate Members of the other side 
of the aisle. Actually, there are many of us that get along quite well 
other than talking about politics. And that's why we protect that hour. 
We don't talk about politics during that time because those that gather 
together have something in common, our Christian faith, as well as a 
heart, wanting to do what's best for this country to ensure that we 
pass on a better country than we received as stewards.
  For the first time in American history, surveys now indicate perhaps 
70 percent or more of the American adults believe that we will pass on 
to our children a country with less opportunity, and our children will 
have it less well than we have it right now. I'm determined to do 
everything I can to try to keep that from happening.
  But politics doesn't really get into the Thursday morning prayer 
breakfast where we have our little gathering. It doesn't get into our 
prayer time where voluntarily Members of Congress come together the 
first night votes are back. Republicans, Democrats, express personal 
needs for prayer, and we join hearts and minds together in prayer for 
those things of need, as well as those things that we prayed for that 
result in a rejoicing.
  So those kinds of things go on, and I'm very sincere in being 
grateful to

[[Page 928]]

the President for continuing the tradition of appearing at the 
Presidential prayer breakfast. It is quite meaningful. There are people 
from over a hundred different countries, and I've talked to so many 
from so many different countries. I've developed good friends in other 
countries that they have started prayer breakfasts among their 
legislators and leaders, and it's wonderful to see that kind of thing 
going on.
  Unfortunately, yesterday, one thing got entered into the prayer 
breakfast that we, I think, would be better off avoiding, and that is 
in such a breakfast having someone stand up and basically make it sound 
as though the programs I'm for are based on Christianity, the inference 
being, if you oppose me on this, apparently you're not a good 
Christian.
  There's an article that Breeanne Howe posted, yesterday, Thursday, 
and she starts off with a quote from C.S. Lewis, one of my favorite 
authors, and the President started with a quote from one of my favorite 
authors, and the quote is: Christianity has not and does not profess to 
have a detailed political program. It's meant for all men at all times, 
and the particular program which suited one place or time would not 
suit another.
  Her article says: This morning, in the middle of his National Prayer 
Breakfast speech, President Obama delighted those of us who love irony 
by quoting C.S. Lewis. It was an interesting moment in a speech that 
put forth the notion that taxing the wealthy is right along in line 
with the teachings of Jesus.
  She says, I mean, Jesus did hang out with tax collectors, right? The 
idea that government welfare is somehow the fulfillment of Jesus' 
teaching on charity is a common misconception that many people make, 
Christians included; and it's the main reason that liberals believe 
conservatives are Christian hypocrites. Perhaps if the President 
visited church more often than only during campaign seasons, he might 
not be so confused.
  See, not only do we spend time praising God in church; we also gain 
insight from pastors who've surely spent more time in the word of God 
than we have.
  And let me insert parenthetically here, I don't hold the failure to 
attend church against any President because when you look at it, when a 
President comes to church, if they go to a graduation, they change the 
whole complexion. They force everyone else there to go through metal 
detectors and all of this just so one man can come and worship.
  So at times it may even be admirable not to go to church and force 
people to do that. So I don't have a problem with that, although the 
article goes on and points out other difficulties.
  It says: While Obama may have been correct in saying that government 
mandated shared responsibility, it is equal to the Islamic belief that 
those of us who've been blessed have an obligation to use those 
blessings to help others. She says he's incorrect to group in Jesus' 
teachings ``for unto whom much is given, much shall be required;'' that 
is, aside from the fact that Jesus was discussing requirements from 
God, not the government, he was actually teaching his disciples that 
they were stewards of God's gift of revelation.

                              {time}  1240

  The requirement was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. It's the 
crux of Christianity that Obama seems to miss. Jesus came because we 
were imperfect. We could never fulfill all the requirements that the 
pharisees loved to lord over the people. Jesus' coming ended the rule 
of law and began the acceptance that our only way to God was through 
him. Yes, Jesus very much emphasized the importance of giving to the 
poor but as a reaction and joy to what we'd been given, not because of 
a law. Giving out of obligation, she points out, is not truly giving; 
it's merely following the rules. Just ask anyone who's ever written a 
check to pay their taxes. I doubt you'll find them excited.
  Ms. Howe goes on and says the Bible also teaches that everything we 
have, including money, belongs to God. We're called to be good stewards 
with his money. The government is the epitome of mismanaging money. If 
you truly want to help the poor, you should probably seek out 
charities, but that would require a bit of work on the part of a giver, 
and a great many find it easier to just let the government run every 
aspect of their lives.
  So it is that welfare money ends up spitting out of strip club ATMs, 
and those same people who paid their charity to the government wonder 
why government hasn't solved this issue. Perhaps they should ask the 27 
Democrats who voted against stopping welfare checks from being used at 
strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores.
  Another highlight in Obama's speech, Ms. Howe points out, was his 
proud proclamation that his administration has partnered with Catholic 
charities to help those in poverty. She says: I wonder if these 
charities are among the ones begging the Obama administration, to no 
avail, to change the recent Obama edict requiring them to cover both 
birth control costs in their health care even though it's against their 
religious beliefs to do so. Really, slapping them across the face would 
take less time and probably hurt less.
  So I again applaud the President for appearing yesterday, and hope 
that in the future Presidents can avoid references that their agenda is 
based on Christ's teachings, which would clearly indicate belief that 
those of us who oppose some aspect of governmental taking and 
governmental running everything in our lives, that we're the ones who 
are being non-Christian or being hypocrites, because the fact is, you 
know, though Jesus did say render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, he also 
indicated, as his relationship with Zacchaeus would show, that you're 
supposed to be responsible as members of the government.
  Zacchaeus was so excited about having Jesus come that apparently it 
showed in his life and his exuberance. And not only did his life 
completely change from having met Jesus, he actually, after Jesus came 
into his life, decided the appropriate thing for him as a governmental 
tax collector would be to cut taxes. Not only did he cut taxes, he 
actually gave a 4 to 1 rebate to those from whom he'd taken too much. 
So if our government is looking for an example to follow, perhaps doing 
what Zacchaeus did after he met Jesus would be a good way to go.
  Government is supposed to be responsible. Those of us in government 
do have an obligation as stewards of this country to provide for the 
common defense and make sure that their own internal financial policies 
do not bring this Nation down, that we're stewards of this great 
country so that young people, some of them here, will have a country 
even better, with more freedoms and more opportunities. And every 
generation up until now has done that and provided the next generation 
with more opportunities than they had.
  We have a lot of work to do. The reason that I feel so good about 
today is after 7 years of pushing a bill, a concept, that seems a 
surprise to Americans when they hear that we haven't dealt with this 
before, but it is stopping the automatic increases in every Federal 
department's budget every year. It began in 1974.
  Now, I was going about my life. I served in the military for 4 years, 
practiced law for a number of years, was a judge for a number of years. 
And I was listening to Rush Limbaugh one day at lunch, and he was 
talking about the zero baseline budget. And as I listened, I was a 
person who was shocked. What? Our Federal Government can't balance its 
budget, and yet it has automatic increases every year in its budgets? 
That's a no-brainer--just stop the automatic increases. At that time, 
the Republicans were in the majority. Even though there was a 
Democratic President, Newt Gingrich and others here showed that if you 
are persistent and you send the President a balanced budget, he may 
veto it once, he may veto it twice, but you keep sending him back a 
balanced budget, eventually you may even get Bill Clinton to sign it 
because he sees the will of the American people is behind the Congress, 
not behind a President who's going to keep vetoing a balanced budget. 
So they finally got a balanced budget signed into

[[Page 929]]

law. And they balanced the budget. But they never eliminated the 
automatic increases.
  One of the things that got me to thinking about--probably the main 
thing that first started me to thinking about running for Congress was 
the need to change legislation through which this country since the 
sixties has provided incentives financially to prevent people from 
reaching their full potential. So that if a young girl gets bored with 
high school and she drops out of school and has a baby, instead of 
having financial incentives--because we know, having the gift of 
history behind us, we know that if she finishes high school, she will 
make more during her lifetime than those who don't finish high school. 
The statistics are so clear. So why wouldn't we want to give her 
incentives? Despite the hardship of trying to finish school with a 
child, give her incentives, help her get through high school so she can 
start reaching her God-given potential. Don't give her incentives to 
stay out of school and keep having child after child.
  I had one woman who had had 15 children, didn't even know where they 
were, but she had been getting 15 checks. Our government gave her 
incentives to do that.
  Now, it's one thing when people choose a way of lifethat keeps them 
from reaching their potential, but it's quite another when we as a 
Federal Government put in place incentives to keep them from reaching 
the potential that they have.
  And one of the things that hurts so much during a downturn economy 
for any individual is when they have lost their job and they're used to 
working because there is fulfillment in working.
  Even those of us who believe the Bible's account that there was an 
Adam and Eve know that before there was a fall from grace when things 
were perfect, they had a job, and it was to tend the garden. Each 
individual has the same responsibility. Maybe you're renting. Maybe 
you're living on somebody else's property. But wherever we are, we have 
a responsibility to tend that garden. And there's some fulfillment 
that's innate in mankind that if you have a job and you accomplish 
things, you have fulfillment, you have self-worth. From that you begin 
to notice, wow, as C.S. Lewis did, the man the President quoted.
  C.S. Lewis noted in his book, ``The Case For Christianity,'' 
incorporated in the book ``Mere Christianity,'' he talks about how he 
enjoyed as a professor at Oxford goading Christians. How can there be a 
good God or a just God when there's so much injustice in the world? 
Eventually, he got around to realizing that if there were not some 
standard, unwavering, unequivocal standard of absolute right and wrong 
in the universe, then how would he know that there was injustice in the 
world?

                              {time}  1250

  In the same manner in which a person who is blind from birth sees 
nothing but blackness, how could they ever know that there was light 
and color and beauty with their own eyes? They can't see it.
  Lewis explains that he began to realize there has to be something out 
there, there has to be some entity that has set up justice so I would 
know right from wrong, I would know injustice from justice.
  Yet here we are in the United States Government as Members of 
Congress, and too often we begin to think not only should we provide 
for the common defense, not only should we ensure that this government 
doesn't go broke in providing for the common defense, but we have those 
who think we should tell everybody how they have to live as a judge in 
Texas did.
  A student may voluntarily want to get up; she is given the right to 
stand up and give a valedictory address. It may be from her heart, and 
she wants to thank God; but if she mentions the word ``God,'' 
``invocation,'' ``benediction,'' ``join in prayer,'' ``bow our 
heads''--he had a whole list of things--then he will send her to jail 
because he is going to tell people what they can and cannot say.
  During the revolution, one of the most quoted comments that is 
usually attributed to Voltaire is: ``I disagree with what you say, but 
I will defend to the death your right to say it.''
  It is one of the reasons I was willing to take a scholarship from the 
United States Army at Texas A&M. It is because I looked forward to 4 
years of service and being a part of our Nation's defense, to defend 
those rights that people are supposed to have--to practice religion, to 
believe as their heart leads them.
  Coming to Congress was quite eye opening. In January of 2005, when I 
was sworn in, I was surprised with this issue of automatic increases in 
our Federal appropriation for every Department in the Federal 
Government automatically increasing. If anyone said let's slow down 
this rate of increase, then they were portrayed as wanting to hurt 
people or make draconian cuts when all they were doing was slowing the 
rate of automatic increase. There were no cuts.
  As we have been going through these last 3 years, 4 years of 
recession, unlike any other recession in our Nation's history because 
the things that should have gone on have not gone on--I know most of us 
on this side of the aisle agree it is because the President has 
hijacked the economy with trillions of dollars in giveaway programs, 
including to groups like Solyndra. We keep hearing about those more and 
more. There are more and more hundreds of millions, billions of dollars 
given to folks because they are pursuing some project that will never 
make money, but it is something the President wants to promote.
  It makes no sense not to stop the automatic increases. I brought it 
up back in my first Congress as a freshman: Why haven't we stopped the 
automatic increases in every Department's budget? Make them come in and 
show us that it is justified to increase their budget. Don't give them 
an automatic increase and then only require them to come forward if 
they want an increase in the increase. Make them come in and justify 
the increase.
  We are going to give our Nation's youth a bankrupted country, for 
Heaven's sake. Let's at least give them the chance to take over a 
country where they have freedom from government intrusion into their 
personal lives and where they have a government that is not bankrupt. 
We are already saddling them with 10, 20, 30, 40, $50,000 of debt 
before they ever arrive in this world. For Heaven's sake, we should be 
more responsible than that.
  What could have been an easier piece of low-hanging fruit to get us 
on the right track towards being responsible than to say every Federal 
Department, You come in and justify an increase in your budget, because 
otherwise you're not getting one; we're just starting where you were 
last year?
  This should have been a no-brainer. It should have been an easy thing 
to do. I have been here for 7 years and it has not been done. Two of 
those years we were in the majority, 2005 and 2006. For a year now, we 
have been back in the majority.
  I think most people who follow what happens in Congress know that I 
have not always been a big supporter of some of the things that our 
leadership has done. Since I believe in calling things as they are when 
our leadership has not stood firm and stood for what is right and stood 
for what we got elected to do, I owe an obligation to Speaker Boehner 
to say thank you. 2005 and 2006 when we were in the majority, neither 
the budget chairman nor the Speaker were interested in eliminating the 
automatic increases in every Federal Department's budget.
  Speaker John Boehner assured me last summer that we would get this 
done. But he said since he is not theBudget Committee chairman, that 
will be up to Chairman Paul Ryan to get that done. Well, lucky me, 
because Paul Ryan, it turns out, back before I ever got to Congress, 
had, with our good friend Jeb Hensarling, been pushing an end to the 
automatic increases in every Federal Department's budget.
  Yet even in a Republican majority, before I got to Congress, that 
bill did not get passed. The automatic increases continued even as 
people in the United States were struggling. Nobody else has an 
automatic increase in their family budget every year.

[[Page 930]]

  I have discussed this with Chairman Paul Ryan. He has struggled with 
this over the years while he was not chairman of the Budget Committee. 
We should do more oversight over Federal Departments. How are you 
spending your money? But because we are required to have a budget every 
year, then the whole year seems to be taken up with getting that budget 
done and dealing with those budget issues.
  He has a solution for that, and that is another bill that I 
understand will be forthcoming from the Budget Committee to go to a 
biennial, a 2-year budget. We will do a budget that will cover 2 years, 
and that will allow Congress to have hearings and do better oversight.
  Before, when Departments wanted an increase in the increase, they had 
to come up and lobby people on the Hill, say, We need this; we need 
more money than the automatic increase, and there really wouldn't be 
time to do proper investigation to see exactly how they were spending 
their money. A 2-year budget that Chairman Ryan has indicated he would 
like to see, that would allow them to do the proper oversight.
  There are some in the motion to recommit by the Democrats, some of 
those budgets that I can promise you will be part of some of those 
programs that virtually every Republican will want to increase. The 
better way to move forward is to have a budget, no automatic increases, 
and then have oversight.

                              {time}  1300

  Then those Departments, where there will be some part of the 
Department where we'll want to see an increase, let's look at the areas 
that need decreasing. Well, when there's an automatic increase every 
year, then you don't have the opportunity to really go back and visit 
that; you're worried about doing the budget for the next year.
  So I applaud the House for passing the zero-baseline budget bill; and 
I am very grateful to our leadership, to Paul Ryan, and the freshman 
class that has come through that wanted to see this happen.
  I filed this bill in each of the four Congresses I've been in. It 
really takes someone in a committee of jurisdiction shepherding that 
through. So my language was incorporated into a bill that our freshman 
Representative Woodall put together. As a member of the Budget 
Committee, he did an excellent job of marshaling that through, handling 
things here on the floor, and even dealing with the debates.
  I think it's important to note we've had friends across the aisle 
stand up and argue against passage of a zero-baseline budget yesterday 
and today. One of the more articulate people in the House is Chris Van 
Hollen, and when we disagree, I still admire his ability to put words 
together in such an adept fashion. I have his exact words in his 
argument against passage of a bill that ends the automatic increases 
every year. My friend across the aisle, Mr. Van Hollen, said: ``This 
bill, when you pass it, doesn't save one penny.'' He goes on to talk 
about how we can cut them if we really want to cut them, but he goes on 
and he says: ``So, again, this bill doesn't save a penny.'' He finishes 
his comments in saying: ``But this bill doesn't mandate any kind of 
cutting of that nature.''
  So I was interested when our colleague across the aisle, 
Representative DeLauro, came to the floor because she stated, in 
arguing against the zero-baseline budget, she said: ``At its heart, 
this bill is a back-door attempt to enact the same radical cuts the 
majority attempted last year and to further reduce the spending caps 
agreed to in the last August Budget Control Act.''
  She said: ``By eliminating inflation from our official budget 
considerations, this bill represents a freeze on all discretionary 
programs that over time would become a devastating cut to critical 
programs.'' She said: ``Within 10 years, all discretionary programs 
would see their funding slashed by as much as 20 percent,'' and she 
references this dangerous cut.
  So we have one of our very able colleagues across the aisle saying 
this doesn't save one penny, and another colleague across the aisle 
standing up and saying this represents radical cuts. Well, what it 
should do and what it does do is eliminate the automatic increases that 
no family in America, no business in America has. All of the surveys 
indicate Federal employees are being paid better than the private 
sector. Why shouldn't we take a better, closer look in each Congress as 
to which Department needs increase and which needs decrease, and what 
parts of each Department should be lowered and which should be raised. 
That is the responsible thing to do.
  I think Chairman Ryan's proposal to a 2-year budget, though I had 
never thought about it before talking with him--2-year budgets are what 
we have in Texas so that you have some planning and you have something 
to count on. I think it also indicates for this country what we see 
over and over, the private sector says if you could give us some 
continuity where we know the same laws will be utilized for at least 
some period of time, then we've got something to count on and we'll 
invest our capital.
  Whether they're Democrat or Republican business folks, or like on 
Wall Street where they're four-to-one Democrat over Republican, they 
still get it; and they will see, gee, we've got some continuity here so 
that we shouldn't be afraid to invest capital and get the economy 
going. But as the old saying goes, capital is a coward; it goes to 
areas where it feels safest and it never feels safe when things are 
constantly in flux. This way there will be more continuity, and we'll 
know more of what to expect.
  Last year, CBO--and that's the Congressional Budget Office. It has 
rather interesting rules. I think when you look at the history of CBO's 
projections of the costs of things and how revenue would go, it makes 
it pretty clear. If we were in the private sector, we would have gotten 
rid of CBO a long time ago and gotten somebody that is far more 
accurate at projections.
  I know that CBO previously, when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker, Harry Reid 
is head of the Senate, they were pushing the ObamaCare bill. It was 
scored, and CBO scored it over $1 trillion. Then the Director got 
called over to the White House for a little woodshedding, although 
Director Elmendorf has told me he wasn't woodshedded, that he just had 
a nice conversation with the President. But after whatever you want to 
call it, his visit to the White House, he went back and cut off a 
quarter of a trillion dollars from their estimate basically and said, 
well, it's more like around $800 billion is the projected cost.
  Well, some of us weren't terribly surprised after it passed that CBO 
then came back and said, even though the President said it would cost 
less than $1 trillion and we had projected it would cost more than $1 
trillion, and then the President asked us to lower it and we took a new 
look and we lowered it to around $800 billion, now that it has passed--
after the President promised everybody it would cost less than $1 
trillion--now it's passed and we look at it and you know what, it's 
really over $1 trillion that it will cost us.
  So if we want to keep faith in CBO and really figure out how much we 
can trust them, then maybe that is a good indication, that any 
projection from CBO should be looked at with a factor of plus or minus 
25 percent. They give us a projection, but they may be off by 25 
percent too low, they may be off 25 percent too high. So really you 
have about a 50 percent chance of the CBO just really missing their 
mark.
  If we were in the private sector trying to balance budgets, unless 
you get government bailouts, you wouldn't allow anything to get money, 
your hard-earned money, thatdoesn't come closer than a plus or minus 25 
percent rate of failure. A plus or minus 25 percent margin of error for 
any government entity should require us to get rid of it and figure out 
new rules for scoring bills and develop an entity, even if it's in the 
private sector where they do a far better job--certain people, some are 
terrible and that's why they go broke, but some are quite good and a 
whole lot better than a 25 percent plus or minus margin of error.
  Now, some have said, well, this is going nowhere in the Senate. We've 
cut

[[Page 931]]

out the automatic increase in the House; but as everybody knows, it's 
got to pass the Senate, and then you've got to get the President to 
sign it. Well, this is an election year. It's amazing sometimes what 
people will do in an election year, because they know the people expect 
it, that they might not do in a non-election year. We're told there may 
be 20 or so Senate seats that could possibly go either way.
  So I would hope that as my friends at FreedomWorks, Heritage Action, 
other places, as they start putting the heat on the Senate to be 
responsible--no more automatic increases in every Department's budget, 
by golly. You need to take a look at those budgets before you increase 
it one penny, see if it needs to be cut, see if it needs to be 
increased.

                              {time}  1310

  That pressure starts being brought to bear on the Senate. I would 
hope that the Republican leader would make clear in writing to the 
majority leader, Harry Reid, that we have at least 47 people ready to 
vote on this bill; and then the pressure goes on the Democrats who are 
in tough election cycles. Well, are you going to be supporting these 
automatic increases? And are you going to stand with Harry Reid and 
prevent this from coming to the floor of the Senate to make us more 
responsible as a government and force us to look at each Department and 
determine whether they needed an increase or not? Or are you just going 
to go along with the same old automatic extra spending every year, like 
no other American can do?
  I have that hope that springs eternal in the human breast, and I hope 
I keep it until the day I die. But I believe we have a real opportunity 
to get it through the Senate, to have at least 60 Senators do the 
responsible thing in a bipartisan way, follow the lead of the House, 
which couldn't have been done without all these wonderful fresh faces, 
like Representative Woodall. Follow the lead of the freshmen who have 
now, for the first time in all these years, said, you know what, no 
more automatic increases.
  I think it's a harbinger of good things to come. I'm greatly 
encouraged as we start--at least early in this year--with such a great 
bill. And I don't know how long the wonderful people of east Texas, who 
I love with all my heart, and I want to live around all of my life--I 
don't know how long they'll allow me the honor of representing them 
here. But I think there is also a message here. It may take 7 years to 
keep pounding on an issue. But when it's the right thing to do, when 
people are struggling across America to pay their bills and they've had 
no automatic increases--in fact, I've talked to people and they 
indicate--they're Democrats--and they say, Please help us. We're having 
such a tough time. We've just been cut in our pay. So could you cut us 
a little slack from Washington?
  We owe it to those people to quit spending so much so they can have 
even a little more of their budget. And I would think, as the President 
has talked about, people paying their fair share, we should take him at 
his word and ram through a flat tax that says, if you're rich, you pay 
more because you're making more. And a flat tax does that. And if you 
are poor, you're not making as much as others, you pay less.
  And in the discussion with Steve Forbes, who ran for President on the 
idea of a flat tax, talking to Steve last week, I was asking him about 
some of the nuances of his plan. But he said under his flat tax 
proposal, if you were a family of four, he provided a $46,000 
exemption. So if you make less than that as a family of four, you don't 
pay any tax. So it's kind of hard to say that you're going after the 
poor in American society.
  A flat tax would eliminate the games. It would allow everyone to pay 
according to what they receive. That way, to whom much is given, more 
would be required, as the President quoted yesterday. And for those who 
are given less, less is required. That would be the way to go.
  Let's cut the automatic expenditures. Let's be more responsible as a 
Congress in supervising those things. As the Oversight Committee, 
oversight hearings progress, move forward, we'll show responsibility in 
doing that; and the American people will be the beneficiary. And I hope 
and pray that within the next few years, the polls and surveys will 
turn around that will show the American public we can get this thing 
back under control so that it can go on for another 200 years. We can 
do that. And then we'll see the surveys turn around so they don't say 
70 percent of American adults don't think we're going to leave our 
children as good a country as we got it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________