December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10949 

provide for a huge stimulus now should 

also provide for particular and identified tax increases and expenditure cuts 

to go into effect in 2013 automatically. 

The statute, of course, could provide 

that those automatic actions will be 

delayed temporarily if we fail to 

achieve 3 percent economic growth in 

2012. 

Now, sure, we’re going to need to 

fine-tune this program later, but we 

need to give the upper hand to those 

Members of Congress who will advocate 

for fiscal responsibility in the early 

part of the next decade. If austerity in 

2013 is mandated by statute that we 

adopt in 2009, then the advocates of fiscal responsibility will have a fighting 

chance when the budgets are negotiated early next decade. 

Only if the economic stimulus proposal is tough, temporary, and self-reversing can we be confident that Congress will adopt a proposal that is big 

enough and fast enough to meet today’s needs. And only if the stimulus 

measures are temporary and self-reversing can we make sure that the actions we take today do not lead to inflation, higher interest rates, a declining dollar and an enormous permanent 

increase in our Federal deficit in the 

years to come. 

f 

RECOGNIZING THE LOSS OF TWO 

FRIENDS 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

CUMMINGS). Under a previous order of 

the House, the gentleman from Texas 

(Mr. LAMPSON) is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMPSON. It is a pleasure to 

stand before this auspicious body yet 

again and express my farewell and 

make notice of the kind words so many 

of my colleagues made about me and 

my service. It has been a privilege to 

serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

On this night, I would recognize the 

death of two friends of mine who provided significant service to the people 

of southeast Texas. 

The electrical workers contracting 

industry lost a tremendous ambassador 

and friend when Charles M. ‘‘Charlie’’ 

LeBlanc died suddenly on Thursday, 

August 21. Charlie served admirably as 

the long-time governor of the southeast chapter of NECA. He formed relationships at the local, State, and national level that were very instrumental in benefiting not only NECA, 

but all of our associated industry partners and friends. 

Charlie LeBlanc’s career in the electrical industry began in 1970 when he 

became indentured as an apprentice in 

Beaumont, Texas. Charlie accepted employment around this time with Gold 

Crest Electric Company and formed a 

friendship with a co-worker, Wayne 

Brockett, that would transform into a 

highly successful business partnership. 

The two hardworking, industrious 

men formed Crown Electric Company 

in 1980. Charlie’s natural charm and 

technical acumen was vital in the continuing success of Crown Electric, Incorporated, and made him a favorite 

with customers, general contractors, 

engineers, and architects. Charlie’s entrepreneurial spirit resulted in a company that has contributed to his community and the electrical contracting 

industry at large for over 20 years. 

Crown Electric, Inc., became a NECA 

member in 1987, and Charlie LeBlanc’s 

service to the southeast Texas chapter 

was immediate, continuous, and resounding. Charlie assumed a position 

in 1988 on the Chapter Codes and 

Standards Committee, where he applied his technical expertise for the 

next three years, and in 1990, Charlie 

was elected to the chapter board of directors, where he continued to serve 

until his passing. Charlie served with 

distinction as chapter treasurer from 

1992 to 2000. And he served concurrently 

on the Chapter Manpower Development, Membership, and Finance Committees. Charlie sacrificed a great 

amount of his own personal time in his 

devotion to chapter affairs. 

b 2130 

In addition to service on the board of 

directors and committees, Charlie 

served as division chairman of the 

Coastal Sabine Division for 4 years and 

has served on every negotiating committee from 1996 to present. Charlie 

served as trustee on the Greater Texas 

IBEW–NECA Annuity Fund from 1999 

to 2004; trustee on the Southeast Texas 

Benefit Trust from 1998 to 2008; the 

Coastal Sabine Labor Management Cooperative Committee from 2001 to 2008; 

and Charlie served continuously on the 

Local Union 479 JATC from 1988 to 2008. 

Charlie’s compassionate but firm leadership, especially on the Apprenticeship Committee, has had a profound 

and lasting effect on generations of apprentices and has left an indelibly positive mark on our industry’s most important resource. 

His service at the national level 

began with his appointment to the District V Apprenticeship Committee in 

1997. Charlie understood the importance of political action and was selected to serve on the NECA National 

Governmental Affairs Committee from 

2000 to 2001 and again in 2008. Most important to the chapter, Charlie assumed the role of Governor in 2001 and 

was an extremely effective and wellliked NECA ambassador at all levels of 

our industry. Charlie applied his 

boundless energy, infinite patience, 

and genuine caring and keen instincts 

to the service of our industry. 

Charlie LeBlanc managed to devote 

himself to civic service in the City of 

Beaumont; service that is important 

not only to the beneficiaries themselves but to the positive perception of 

our customers, community leaders, and 

the IBEW. Charlie served with distinction in the past on the City of Beaumont Electrical Board and the City of 

Beaumont Board of Electrical Inspectors. Charlie served on the board of directors of the Southeast Texas AGC. 

He provided service to the Young Men’s 

Business League and served on the 

board of directors of Boy’s Haven, an 

outreach program designed to benefit 

disenfranchised youth. 

Charlie LeBlanc will be terribly 

missed by all who were privileged to 

know him. 

And Charles ‘‘Chuck’’ Wilson, who 

was the tax assessor/collector for 16 

years of Galveston County, Texas, 

Chuck died the night before last. He 

was a very dear friend, one who had 

many friends across southeast Texas 

and in the profession of property tax 

assessors and collectors across the 

State of Texas, and he too will be 

missed. His family loved him and he 

was known and loved by many. 

It has been a privilege to stand before 

the body of the United States House of 

Representatives for 10 years. I am 

wishing my friends and colleagues a 

farewell and Godspeed on the business 

of the United States of America. I wish 

them well. 

f 

GIVE AMERICA A TAX HOLIDAY 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. GOHMERT) is recognized for 

60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it’s a 

pleasure to be here on the floor where 

so much history has been made since 

the House moved down here around 

1858, 1859. 

Recently I saw an estimate that our 

Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Henry 

Paulson, and the Fed Chair may have 

committed or are in the process of 

committing an estimated $7.7 trillion. I 

couldn’t believe it, $7.7 trillion? 

So I wanted to know how much do 

people pay each year in income tax? 

The estimate I got was $1.21 trillion 

from individual income tax payments 

is what is estimated for the year 2008. 

Six and a half times less than what our 

bureaucrats here in Washington, two 

people, have committed us to or are 

trying to commit us to to get the economy going and to make credit more 

available so people who are lagging behind on their mortgages can catch up? 

I couldn’t believe it. Six and a half 

times more than individual income tax 

that’s going to be paid in this year? It’s 

outrageous. 

My first thought was we’d be better 

off if we had an entire tax holiday for 

all of 2008, that everybody that paid in 

money so far this year gets all of their 

money back. Can you imagine, Mr. 

Speaker, people around this country 

starting to think about how much 

money they would get back that they 

have already paid into the Federal 

treasury this year, how much they 

wouldn’t have to pay in for the rest of 

the year? It’s an incredible amount of 

money. Think about the cars that 

would be bought, how many automakers would be bailed out as people 

H10950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

bought new cars. Think about all of the 

mortgages, all the new home sales that 

would take place, new homes built, new 

businesses built. An extraordinary 

amount of money. And yet we’ve got 

bureaucrats trying to get the economy 

going, obligating six and a half times 

that much money. 

Now, I understand that some of that 

$7.7 trillion is an investment. We have 

heard people say here in Washington, 

leaders I care a lot about, but they’ve 

said only the Federal Government has 

enough patience to hold private assets 

for years until they meet full maturity. Now, I am finishing my 4th year 

here, but just in the 4 years I have been 

here, I can tell you there is no patience 

in the Federal Government. We can’t 

even keep the same tax incentives in 

place from year to year, and here we’re 

supposed to hold these administration 

to administration? 

The bailout bill in September was a 

fiasco. Even those who supported the 

idea of a bailout bill, when you look 

closely at the bill, should have known 

this was not the thing to do. We have 

never in the history of the country 

since the Constitution came into play 

in 1787, as it came into being, we have 

not given one man this much unrestricted, unfettered authority to just 

obligate hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars just however he feels it 

ought to be spent. 

So you look at the way Secretary 

Paulson has obligated the first $350 billion. Well, it’s been squandered when 

you look at the effect it was supposed 

to have. For one thing banks we hear 

are starting to use the money to buy 

up competition. What does that do? It 

monopolizes banking. It kills the community bank for sure. And this is the 

same Secretary of the Treasury who 

back in September used his emergency 

authority to say we’re going to stand 

good dollar for dollar for every dollar 

you’ve got in money markets, but we 

are not going to say the same thing for 

the good, safe community banks. 

They’re only good for $100,000. He 

didn’t say it. He didn’t have to. They 

knew it. So he knowingly, and it had to 

be knowingly because I can’t believe 

he’s that ignorant otherwise—he’s a 

very intelligent man. He had to know 

that he was intentionally creating the 

biggest 1-day run on banks in American history as people went in, pulled 

their money down to the $100,000 level 

that had that much, and moved it to 

money markets. Maybe that was the 

intent. Since he comes from Wall 

Street, he wanted to take it out of the 

community, the safe, commercial 

banks, and send it to his friends on 

Wall Street. Maybe that was the point, 

but he did that. 

Now, others for whatever reason have 

gotten money and all of a sudden decided to tighten up credit. I have a 

friend, a constituent in Nacogdoches, 

Texas, who has a restaurant there. He 

went down to Wells Fargo, he tells me 

this week. He went down, I believe it 

was last week, to Wells Fargo in Houston and asked for a loan, and they said 

you’re just a little late. Apparently 

after Wells Fargo, they said, got their 

money from the Federal taxpayers, 

they tightened the screws on credit and 

now they could no longer lend it to 

him. They could have if he had been 

there sooner before the Federal Government gave Wells Fargo the money. 

But now that Wells Fargo got the 

money, it’s time to pull the plug and 

not lend to good borrowers anymore. 

That was not the intent. I was 

against the bailout, voted against it 

both times. Did not support it. You 

read it. We should not have given that 

kind of authority to one person and especially the provision that allowed him 

to hire whatever advisers and whatever 

managers, whatever he wanted when he 

was going to outsource that. And now I 

hate to be in a position of saying I told 

you so, but it wasn’t a good bill and 

now we have seen that. 

Now, because he was doing all this 

fear mongering for 2 weeks, you know, 

the financial sky is falling as he ran 

around, he scared the stock market 

into paranoid schizophrenia. That’s 

why it’s up, it’s down, it’s up, it’s 

down. The least little thing sets it off 

because he scared it into that. You 

cannot have a national leader go on 

television and say we’re about to have 

a worse depression than the 1930s. 

We’re about to have a stock market 

crash like 1929. You can’t do that. You 

have to be the one that says ‘‘we have 

nothing to fear but fear itself.’’ Calm 

down, it’s going to be okay. And it 

turns out all the while I read something that indicated that we had more 

home sales in September than any 

month since the year 2003. So things 

were going pretty good until we got all 

that fear mongering. 

The other thing was he said he was 

going to buy troubled assets, buy the 

mortgage-backed securities. And if I 

understood right, before the Senate he 

testified he was already thinking by 

the time it passed the House that he 

was going to have to do something else. 

Maybe it was the next day. If he were 

to have been considering doing something else other than what he represented, going back to my days as a 

judge, if somebody, whether it was the 

Secretary of the Treasury or anybody 

else, comes in and gets money based on 

false premises or false promises that he 

knows he’s not going to follow through 

on, you get into some interesting doctrines, whether it’s a promissory estoppel, fraud, different things like that. 

The bottom line is it’s time to end his 

authority. 

Now, I’ve had people in this Congress 

tell me, no, what was negotiated with 

the Treasury was that we will get a 

strict up-or-down vote before Paulson 

can spend the other $350 billion. That’s 

not what the bill says. The bill basically says that before he can squander 

the other $350 billion, and ‘‘squandering’’ is my word and I paraphrase 

based on his prior performance, that 

before he can get that $350 billion, all 

he has to do is propose a plan, and if 

Congress doesn’t vote to disapprove the 

plan within 15 days, he gets the money. 

They could do that over Christmas. 

People not get back in time to have a 

vote, and he’s got the money. 

So it’s time to end that. That’s why 

even though my first thought was a 

whole year tax holiday, and imagine 

what that would do for the economy, it 

would be extraordinary, there were not 

a lot of supporters for that. I love and 

cherish and appreciate the support of 

the great congressman from the State 

of Arizona, JOHN SHADEGG. JOHN has 

been a confidant. He has been a helpful 

source and resource. He liked the idea 

and was telling me tonight he may go 

ahead and file that anyway. But in 

looking at the $350 billion still unspent 

of the original $700 billion that this 

Congress allocated for him to spend, 

let’s cut that off and let’s see what we 

could get instead. Instead of letting 

Mr. Paulson spend that money, let’s let 

the taxpayers keep their own money 

for 2 months. What you would do under 

this bill, and we filed it yesterday, H.R. 

7309, it would allow for the months of 

January and February a complete tax 

holiday. This isn’t by and by in the 

sky. This is real time. In January if 

this bill were to be brought to the 

floor—and I feel sure if it gets to the 

floor it will pass because otherwise 

people would be afraid to face the voters if they voted not to let taxpayers 

spend their money but to allow 

Paulson to continue to have that authority or some other Secretary of the 

Treasury. Let there be no Federal 

withholding for the months of January 

and February. Not only would there be 

no withholding, the tax rate, as it says 

in the bill, for wages received for services performed during the period beginning January 1, 2009, ending February 

28, 2009, shall be 0 percent. On down it 

indicates self-employment income for 

services performed during the period 

beginning January 1, 2009, ending February 28, 2009, the percentage shall be 0 

percent. 

b 2145 

So, basically, getting a two-twelfth 

or 162⁄3 percent tax cut for the year 

2009, now, that will help get the economy going. Why not let somebody have 

that substantial amount of money 

being pulled out of their check and 

sent to Washington for Paulson to 

squander, why not let them have it, let 

them catch up on their mortgage? 

Because I know, I have heard a number of people say we fell a little behind 

back when gasoline was $4 a gallon. I 

can’t get my breath. I can’t catch a 

breather. Let them get the breather by 

getting their own money, getting their 

own FICA. Because that means even 

people who are on the lowest wageearning scale, who don’t make enough 

to pay income tax, they still have 

FICA withheld for Social Security and 

all from their paycheck. 

This would let them have that back, 

give them a boost. Since they are not 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10951 

having to take anything out for FICA, 

the employer would not have to match 

that for 2 months. That will allow the 

employer not to have to fire anybody 

for a couple of months, give them a little breather to catch up. 

Then at the end of the year you have 

2 months for which you did not have 

income that’s taxable. Now, the reason 

we had to word it the way we did was 

because people were saying, man, if 

that were about to happen, we will just 

postpone Christmas bonuses and put 

them in January or February. Well, 

that’s not what this is for. This is for 

wages earned, for services performed 

during those months, and that would 

make it work. 

Now, I have been joined by my friend 

here from Georgia, Dr. PAUL BROUN, 

who it is an honor to serve with. I 

would like to yield such time to my 

friend, PAUL BROUN, as he may use. 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, 

Mr. GOHMERT, for introducing this very 

innovative legislation. I would like to 

ask a couple of questions if you don’t 

mind, if that’s all right with you, have 

a little colloquy with you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Certainly. 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. If I remember 

correctly, John F. Kennedy, when he 

became President, lowered the tax 

rate, the top tax rates, which were extremely high at the time, but he lowered those. If I remember correctly, 

didn’t that stimulate the economy, and 

didn’t we have a stronger economy 

when President Kennedy, a Democrat, 

actually lowered taxes? 

Mr. GOHMERT. It absolutely did, no 

question. 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I kind of remember also that Ronald Reagan did 

the same thing, and we had one of the 

fastest growths of economy in the history of this Nation, is that not correct? 

Mr. GOHMERT. You remember correctly, yes, sir. 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. And I think 

also when President Bush proposed cutting capital gains taxes and the death 

taxes and other things, gave us an increase in child tax credits, I think that 

also stimulated the economy? 

Mr. GOHMERT. It certainly did. 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. That’s the 

thing about your bill that I see. This 

will lower the tax rate for everybody. 

It’s time to bail out the taxpayer. 

It’s time to bail out small business, 

and we are not doing that. We have 

been bailing out the Wall Street bankers, the big insurance companies, now 

the Big Three automakers, but the car 

dealers need a bailout. Small business 

needs a bailout. Working people need a 

bailout, and the best way to do that is 

pass your bill, in my opinion. 

Actually, I think our mutual friend, 

JOHN SHADEGG, did introduce his bill 

this evening, is what I understand. He 

came up to me on the floor and did introduce the bill. I am honored to be a 

cosponsor of that bill, as well as yours. 

I applaud you for the idea, because you 

brought it up, and JOHN SHADEGG took 

that idea. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I am a cosponsor on 

Mr. SHADEGG’s bill as well, because I 

love the idea. It would get the economy 

flying so high, going to strong. Who 

knows if and when it could ever come 

down, it would move it so quickly. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. 

GOHMERT, the thing I see about your 

bill that I see is that what it will do is 

it will put dollars in people’s pockets. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Absolutely. 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. And they will 

be able to go and help pay off their 

mortgages. They will be able to go and 

help buy a new automobile. So that 

will bail out the car dealers, which this 

bailout deal that we passed, that the 

House passed tonight, is not going to 

do. 

In fact, there is nothing in this bill 

that guarantees the car dealers are 

going to have their warranties recognized. There is nothing in this bill tonight, from what I understand, that’s 

going to give them their hold back that 

the car companies are keeping from 

the car dealers. 

So, actually, the car dealers are 

working on a float—I mean, the car 

manufacturing companies are working 

on a float from the car dealers, which 

is totally unfair. It’s something that 

your bill will actually give people dollars in their pocket. That’s going to 

stimulate our economy, I believe, and I 

think you believe the same thing too. 

It will stimulate our economy, because what we have to do to create jobs 

is for people to have money, to be able 

to invest it, whether they save it and 

put that money in the bank or in some 

financial institution, so the financial 

institution that then, in turn, can loan 

that money out to someone else, it will 

put money in the hands of small business, so that that will be stronger. 

That will create jobs, which creates a 

stronger economy every time we have 

seen a lowering of tax rates throughout 

this country, by Democratic as well as 

Republican Presidents, Democratic and 

Republican Congresses. 

We have seen a growth of the economy of the United States. Everybody, 

everybody has benefited, from the lowest wage owners to the highest wage 

earners. It also creates jobs so that 

this brings people who are unemployed 

into the job market. We have seen a 

greater income to the Federal Government because of the increase in the 

economy. 

I was asked today at your news conference, by one of the members of the 

press, is your bill one that’s going to 

create a bigger deficit? Frankly, I told 

the young lady that asked me that 

that, no, I don’t think it’s going to create a deficit. If you scored by static 

scoring then maybe. But if you do dynamic scoring, which is real live scoring, then the Federal Government will 

get more money in because of greater 

economic activity in America. 

We will see a greater growth of our 

economy. We will see jobs created. We 

will see people catching up on their 

mortgages. Are people going out and 

actually buying houses? 

So we will see a tremendous economic growth throughout America. 

That’s the reason I have cosponsored 

your bill. I applaud your efforts. I have 

also cosponsored JOHN SHADEGG’s bill, 

which is actually your bill, and I congratulate you on that also. 

We have to bail out the taxpayer. We 

have to bail out the working man and 

woman in this Nation. We have to build 

small businesses, because that’s the engine that drives the economy of the 

United States. That’s where most jobs 

are created in America. 

It’s absolutely critical for us to lower 

taxes, not raise taxes. It’s absolutely 

critical for us to stop borrowing money 

from our grandchildren, not only our 

children, but our grandchildren, and 

that’s what we are doing. We are creating greater Federal debt, greater 

deficits, and we are borrowing that 

money, actually, today, from China 

and foreign entities, and our grandchildren will have to pay for that. It’s 

criminal, it’s immoral, in my opinion, 

that we are doing that as a Congress. 

So, Mr. GOHMERT, I highly applaud 

what you have done in this bill. I highly applaud your very innovative thinking, your thinking outside the box, if 

you will, to use a trite phrase. 

But what you have done is you have 

brought a piece of legislation that if 

the American public will just understand how important this is to them, 

how this will put dollars in their pocket, it will help them pay their bills. It 

will help them to catch up if they are 

behind. 

It will help create new jobs. It will 

help create a stronger economy. Your 

bill and JOHN SHADEGG’s bill is the kind 

of spark plug that we need to have a 

greater economy, and to stop these doldrums that we have today. 

I deplore what Hank Paulson has 

done. I think it’s just horrible that he 

has created this tremendous fear 

throughout our Nation, so people are 

holding on to their money, those that 

even have it. There are segments of our 

society that are doing fairly well economically. But there are many segments of our society that need some 

help, and your bill will help everybody 

at all levels, from the lowest-income 

people in this country to the highest. 

It will help create a stronger economy. It will help create economic 

growth. It will help create new jobs. It 

will help do the things that we desperately need to do to put this country 

back on the right course from an economic standpoint. 

So, Mr. GOHMERT, I highly applaud 

what you have done, and I want the 

American taxpayers to be able to control their own money, not Mr. Paulson, 

or whoever the new finance czar might 

be. We have set up a finance czar in 

this country, and I think that is extremely dangerous. 

As you said in your opening remarks, 

we are federalizing banks. We have created an environment where the 

H10952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

megabanks are buying up smaller 

banks, so we have less competition. 

The marketplace is the best way to 

control quality, quantity and cost of 

all goods and services. 

So we need to defederalize the financial institutions, we need to put money 

back in the pockets of the taxpayers, 

the workers of America. We need to put 

money back in the pockets of small 

business owners so that they can create a stronger business and thus create 

more jobs, and your bill just does exactly those things. 

So I highly applaud what you are 

doing with this bill, and I call upon the 

American taxpayers, the American 

public, to contact your Member of Congress and demand a vote on the 

Gohmert bill. 

What is the number, Mr. GOHMERT? 

Mr. GOHMERT. It would be H.R. 7309. 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. H.R. 7309; is 

that correct? 

Mr. GOHMERT. That’s correct. 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. H.R. 7309, so 

I hope that the people watching tonight will contact their neighbors, 

their friends, their family members, 

contact everybody they know and say 

there is a bill in Congress, right now, 

today, that can be voted on, that will 

lower our tax rate by 161⁄2 percent, 

right? 

Mr. GOHMERT. That’s correct. 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. And it will 

put dollars back in people’s pockets. It 

will help stimulate our economy, and it 

will help us to get back on the right 

track economically so that America 

can be economically secure. 

So I applaud what you are doing. I 

highly recommend to other Members of 

Congress to get on your bill, and I 

highly recommend that the American 

public contact their Member of Congress in the House and the Senate and 

demand a vote on Mr. GOHMERT’s bill, 

H.R. 7309, which will lower your tax 

rate, put money in your pocket, and let 

you control your economic destiny. 

Mr. GOHMERT, I thank you so much, 

and I appreciate this time that you 

have yielded to me. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I sure do thank my 

friend from Georgia. I appreciate those 

comments very much. 

This poster pretty much says it all. 

This is what boils down H.R. 7309 into 

a nutshell. You have the Secretary of 

the Treasury Paulson here on one side, 

and then they have got you, the taxpayer, all the taxpayers across America on the other. The question is, who 

do you want to spend your $350 billion, 

because it hasn’t been spent very well. 

When you hear that there are executives that may get millions in bonuses 

for running their business into the 

ground, and, sure, the government has 

some culpability in that, we sure do. 

Things haven’t been run very well. But, 

obviously, they haven’t run them very 

well either, and they want bonuses 

while the taxpayers they are taking it 

from have none and are cutting back 

on Christmas presents. Because of the 

way things are going, it is really tragic. 

My friend from Georgia mentioned 

the automakers bailout that we voted 

on tonight is a mistake, it’s not properly done. It is only a temporary fix 

that’s going to lead to more and more 

and more. It sounds like a placation to 

the UAW. 

I am much more concerned about car 

dealers than the UAW. I am very concerned about the auto workers and all 

these plants all over the country. 

Because one of the things I found 

when we went to China a few years ago, 

a number of bipartisan groups went, 

talked to different CEOs from industry. 

Why did you move your industry to 

China? 

Over and over we heard them say, 

well, our quality control was better in 

America. I thought perhaps they would 

say we moved because of the cheaper 

labor. They said, yes, labor is cheaper, 

and no unions to deal with. But that’s 

not the reason we kept hearing that 

they moved. It was that we have a corporate tax that’s over twice what 

China has, and then apparently they 

are willing to negotiate with some corporations, depending on what they 

bring to China. 

b 2200 

So I am not as concerned for organizations as I am for the individuals; the 

workers in these plants, the workers at 

the car dealers, all these people that 

will be hurt if the automobile makers 

in America go down. But I don’t think 

that will happen, even through a chapter 11. 

But I am extremely concerned any 

time any entity has money that belongs to other people and they hold on 

to it as if for ransom, and that is what 

we are hearing may be happening with 

some of the hold-back money, the rebate money that is owed by the auto 

makers to the dealers. And it is just 

not right. 

You come in here to Congress begging for money and you are not even 

going to live up to your side of the bargain? Regardless of what your religious 

beliefs are, and I never seek to impose 

mine on anyone else, but Jesus did 

refer to such a situation in one of his 

parables, like as in one person being 

forgiven their debts, and then they go 

and lord it over someone under them. 

We are seeing that kind of thing, and 

it should not be happening, and there 

should not be a dime provided to the 

auto makers until they provide the 

money that is owed to the people that 

they have, that should be going to 

these dealers rather than holding them 

up for the money they are properly 

owed. I don’t think they ought to get a 

dime until they are properly reimbursed themselves out in the dealerships. 

Anyway, we have bureaucrats in 

Washington picking winners and losers. 

The former Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Newt Gingrich, wrote 

an article this past week, and I quote 

from it: ‘‘The bankruptcy of the current Washington political establishment makes Representative Louie 

Gohmert’s new proposal for a tax holiday proposal intriguing.’’ 

He went on to say, ‘‘What Pelosi and 

Paulson are proposing to pour into 

crony capitalism is more than what it 

would cost to give every American taxpayer a total Federal tax holiday for 2 

months.’’ It is a great article and I 

would commend that to you. ‘‘A people 

stimulus package, a tax holiday instead of a bailout.’’ He has a website at 

Newt.org. 

Also American Solutions has some 

wonderful information about the proposed tax holiday. And Jeb Babbin of 

Human Events, the publisher there, has 

a tremendous article on this. He has 

been extraordinary in his support for 

this idea. At one point he says, ‘‘Most 

Americans were opposed to the bank 

bailout last fall, and neither they nor 

the markets themselves have confidence that any of the bailouts or 

‘stimulus packages’ will work. They 

will have confidence in Gohmert’s plan 

because it is an economic stimulus 

that has been proven by history. Tax 

cuts mean more spending, savings and 

investment. They pave the way to economic recovery. Government bailouts 

do not.’’ 

He said, ‘‘Gohmert’s tax holiday plan 

is eloquent in its simplicity.’’ 

Mr. Speaker, that is all I know to do, 

is come back with simplicity. 

‘‘Every American taxpayer would pay 

no Federal income or FICA taxes for 

the first two months of 2009. For the 

typical American family earning about 

$50,000 a year, that would mean they 

would keep about $2,000 that would otherwise be paid to the government. People making that kind of money could 

certainly use $2,000 more than someone 

getting a multi-million dollar bonus.’’ 

‘‘In any event,’’ he says, ‘‘Gohmert’s 

plan doesn’t pay for Wall Street bonuses or let banks use bailout money 

to buy other banks or pay dividends. It 

doesn’t rely on bureaucrats to pay 

money out to the right people at the 

right time or try to stimulate the 

economy with token payments to people who don’t pay taxes. Most Americans pay about 25 percent of their income in Federal income tax and another 7.25 percent in FICA, Social Security and Medicare taxes. 

‘‘Computing how much money 

Gohmert’s tax holiday would leave in 

your family’s checkbook is very simple. The fact is, you can just look at 

your paycheck. Look at the stub. It 

will tell you how much has been held 

out of your check. You see how much 

has been held out of your check for a 

month for Federal withholding and for 

FICA. That is what you would get 

back.’’ 

I would like to point out, there was a 

quote decades ago from John Kenneth 

Galbraith about economists. Opinions 

of economists have been bantered 

about over and over again. But I think 

about Galbraith’s quote when he said 

there are only two kinds of economists: 

There are those who don’t know, and 

December 10, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10953 

those who don’t know they don’t know, 

and I think our Treasury Secretary is 

in the latter category. 

An interesting article published, 

‘‘Less Government is More Better,’’ by 

Ted Nugent. The guy is amazing. He is 

a rock star, and he is an amazing rock 

star when it comes to political philosophy as well, and I am quoting from his 

article. 

He says, ‘‘That is right, a 2 month, 

$350 billion tax holiday, and no income 

tax for January and February 2009. 

This would be massive wads of your 

money staying in your pockets where 

it belongs, surely doing more for the 

sagging economy than using it to bail 

out Wall Street or the automotive industry.’’ 

He also says, ‘‘Fedzilla,’’ apparently 

that is his term for the Federal Government here in Washington, ‘‘has just 

gotten bigger and bigger. Of course, 

Fedzilla,’’ he says, ‘‘bureaucrats such 

as Speaker Pelosi and others, will fight 

Congressman Gohmert’s proposal because they believe Fedzilla knows how 

to better spend your money than you 

do. But this arrogant attitude by 

Fedzilla-addicted zombies is always the 

problem, never the solution.’’ 

He said, ‘‘Fedzilla rarely gets anything right. Need proof? Quick, name 

three specific things Fedzilla has spent 

your money on which you believe was a 

wise use of your tax dollars.’’ 

He says, ‘‘Taxpayers are partially to 

blame for the financial mess created by 

Fedzilla. We have sat idly by and drank 

the bureaucratic Kool-Aid brewed by 

Fedzilla and slowly surrendered our financial independence to big government bureaucrats. Shame on us,’’ Ted 

Nugent says. He says, ‘‘We should have 

been snarling watchdogs of the bureaucrats with our tax dollars stuffed in 

their bloated wallets, instead of solace, 

disconnected, apathetic accomplice 

lapdogs.’’ 

You have got a quote here from 

Thomas Jefferson. Ted Nugent quotes 

Jefferson saying, ‘‘I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the 

labors of the people under the pretense 

of taking care of them.’’ 

Boy, if that doesn’t apply. Of course, 

Ted Nugent says, ‘‘You think?’’ Sounds 

like my sister’s response. ‘‘You think?’’ 

In any event, this is a simple bill. 

And I know some people have said, 

won’t that hurt Social Security? Section 3 deals with that, and requires the 

Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services and the Commissioner 

of Social Security as appropriate, to 

determine what impact the nonpayment of FICA for 2 months would 

have on the Social Security trust fund 

and the Federal Old Age and Survivors 

Insurance trust fund, Federal Disability Insurance trust fund, Federal 

Hospital Insurance trust fund, and they 

have to make sure the difference is 

made up. 

We have already allocated $350 billion, so shutting them down from using 

that and saying the taxpayers get it instead sounds like a pretty good deal. I 

hope it would. 

We have got to get back to the roots 

of what America was founded on. It 

broke my heart back in September 

when we had this bailout proposed. On 

that first Monday we took the vote, 

some of us knew it was going to be 

tough in the stock market. Why? Because the Treasury Secretary had forecast a self-fulfilling prophesy that the 

stock market would drop unless he got 

his $700 billion slush fund. 

Well, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you promise the market is 

going to drop unless something happens, it usually happens the way you 

say it, because the market is fragile. It 

relies so much on confidence. So it 

dropped 777 points. Something Biblical 

about that, 777. Or I guess if you are 

into I guess slot machines, something 

intriguing about that as well, 777. 

But it also broke my heart to see so 

many people, they knew the principles 

of this country, they knew what it was 

founded on. They knew what started 

the Revolution. They had their history. 

They knew that the people in the colonies, in what back then were the colonies of America, did not want the 

king’s government, any government, 

owning all that they held dear in this 

country. 

When the king, the government, 

started exhorting too much power and 

control and ownership over things in 

the colony, it started a revolution. 

When the signers of the Declaration of 

Independence signed that document, 

they knew that King George would see 

it. It was posted. It was made available. It was read out. People knew who 

had signed it, and so would King 

George III. They knew if the Revolution failed, their lives were over. 

You look at the end of the Declaration of Independence. They said ‘‘we 

pledge our lives, our fortunes,’’ and 

many of them lost both. Some lost 

their lives, some lost their fortunes, 

some lost their families, but they believed it was worth it to have a country in which people could be free to decide what to do with their own property. 

You know, the pilgrims tried this 

idea of basically socialism. They had a 

beautiful compact when they came to 

this land here, the ‘‘New World’’ they 

called it. The compact was they would 

all share the land, they would all 

produce from it, they would bring into 

the common storehouse and then they 

would share equally. 

After the first winter, when so many 

died of starvation, they realized we got 

to go do something different here. First 

of all, if you don’t work, you don’t eat. 

Sound familiar? That is what the Apostle Paul had to order after the New 

Testament church tried the idea of everybody bringing into the common 

storehouse and then sharing it equally. 

The other thing they did was provide 

private plots of land to each individual 

so they could eat what they produced 

and then share what was left. That is 

the way America got started. Those 

were lessons that the founders knew. 

And they knew that if individuals had 

the ability to succeed and flourish as 

private individuals without government control and government constant 

intervention, that this could become 

the greatest country in the world. 

If you read one of John Adams’s letters to Abigail after the signing of the 

Declaration, you can just virtually feel 

the excitement. He said, ‘‘This is a 

great day.’’ My paraphrase is, this is a 

great day. We have within our grasp in 

this country something that the philosophers and the dreamers have only 

dreamed about, and that is within our 

grasp. This day ought to be celebrated 

throughout this Nation’s history with 

picnics and parades, and he mentioned 

firing of guns. We substitute fireworks. 

He knew how important it was, because 

of the ideal that people could have a 

government, this experiment in government, where they would control the 

government and govern themselves. 

And somehow we have wandered so 

far from that that in September of this 

year, we could have a bill that so many 

would vote for that would allow one 

man, a king of a treasurer, to buy private assets, let the government take 

them and make money. 

Let me just say, when you hear 

somebody in the government say we 

are going to take taxpayer money and 

make money with it, then the response 

should be, it is none of your business. 

Taxpayers always make more money 

with taxpayer money than the government could ever do. That is not their 

job. It is called socialism when the government buys into banks, buys stock in 

the banks, buys stock in insurance 

companies, and stock has been offered 

in the car companies. 

We have a bill that will make a Car 

Czar. Can you imagine? I mean, Ted 

Nugent called the government 

‘‘Fedzilla.’’ Can you imagine the kind 

of creation Fedzilla would come up 

with if it starts being the Car Czar, designing cars and telling Detroit what 

they have to produce? I wouldn’t want 

to buy one of those. We saw those kind 

of cars. Not that many people bought 

the Yugos or the other Russian cars 

produced over there designed by a government-controlled car company. 

b 2215 

People didn’t want them. They wanted American cars if they could get 

them. 

But, in any event, we’ve come to this 

time when, in American history, people 

would willingly vote to socialize a segment of the economy. I was told, well, 

this couldn’t be socialism, this was before the final vote, because I only know 

three socialists in America and they’re 

all against the bailout bill. 

Well, it turns out they didn’t like the 

idea of giving Wall Street all this 

money. They just wanted the government to take over the financial sector. 

But hearing one of them on television 

H10954 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE December 10, 2008 

after the bailout, he said, you know, 

this actually ends up being a great day 

because we’ve federalized, socialized 

whatever you want—he didn’t say that, 

but it’s basically socialized a segment 

of the financial economy, the financial 

sector. And now we just need, according to him, to take over the rest of it 

and then we spread it across the country. 

That sounds good. And I heard somebody call into a talk show and say, 

what’s really wrong with socialism? 

Well, let me explain it to you this 

way. When I was an exchange student 

in the Soviet Union back in 1973, I 

spent the summer over there; went out 

to a collective farm, and there were 

some farmers who were sitting in the 

shade, you know, mid-morning. 

Well, I’ve worked on farms, ranches, 

growing up in East Texas, and I know, 

during the summer, like this was, you 

start your work as quick as you can 

after daylight, and you want to be finished before the sun gets too hot. I’ve 

worked in 104, 105-degree heat with lots 

of humidity and it isn’t fun, so you try 

and finish before it gets that hot. 

These guys were all sitting in the 

shade. And I spoke a little Russian 

back then and I asked them, trying to 

be nice, when do you work out in the 

field? And they laughed at me, at the 

question. And one of them spoke and 

said, I make the same number of rubles 

if I’m out there or if I’m here, so I’m 

here. That’s why socialism never 

works, because when people find out 

that they can get just as much as the 

person that works from sun up to sun 

down, then it falls apart. 

Now, the Soviets set a record of having socialism for 70 years. And the only 

way they could make it work was to 

have a tyrannical central government 

that could kill you or imprison you if 

you didn’t play along. But it was 

doomed to failure. 

Socialism is always doomed to failure. And this country, if it were to continue going down this road, would not 

make 70 years unless it went to a tyrannical government as well; and God 

help us if that were to happen. 

In any event, I would rather the 

prayers be that God continue to bless 

America; that we get back to our 

founding principles; that we embrace 

the principles that made America 

great, and not the principles that 

brought about the Revolution. 

My bill, H.R. 7309, helps get us back 

a little bit on track. And you know 

what a great healthy by-product would 

be? When people start realizing how 

much money they’re sending to Washington, they might demand a little better accountability, the kind of accountability we have not gotten from 

the first $350 billion that have been 

squandered for who knows what. It 

hasn’t helped. 

But with that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the patience. I would encourage, 

Mr. Speaker, people all across America 

to call your Representative, call your 

Senators, let them know that the taxpayers should be the one to spend the 

$350 billion, not the Treasury Secretary. 

f 

VACATING 5-MINUTE SPECIAL 

ORDER 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

KAGEN). Without objection, the 5- 

minute Special Order of the gentleman 

from California (Mr. HUNTER) is vacated. 

There was no objection. 

f 

THANKING AMERICANS IN 

UNIFORM WHO SERVED IN IRAQ 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. HUNTER) is recognized for 60 

minutes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to do something that I think has 

been a long time coming. On March 19 

of 2003, the United States made the initial strikes in Iraq with two F–117 aircraft carrying 2,000-pound bombs that 

initiated the action in which Americans took Iraq, overthrew the dictator, 

Saddam Hussein, ultimately established a free government, and built 

from scratch a security apparatus and 

a military in Iraq capable of protecting 

that free government. And today, Mr. 

Speaker, I thought it would be appropriate for this Congress to thank the 

more than 1 million Americans in uniform who have served in Iraq, in the 

Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the 

Air Force, the Coast Guard and in our 

intelligence services and our security 

services, to thank those more than 1 

million Americans, men and women, 

for doing something that Americans 

often applaud; that’s winning. We have 

won in Iraq. 

Mr. Speaker, it was March 19 when 

we initiated that operation with those 

first Tomahawk missiles that were 

launched on leadership positions in 

Baghdad, and those first two F–117 

stealth aircraft that moved out and 

dropped 2,000-pound bombs on important sites. And after that, just 48 hours 

later, on March 20, 2003, two prongs of 

coalition forces moved across the berm 

in Kuwait, after American intelligence 

agents and American Special Operation 

Forces had laid the groundwork, and 

they moved out and they started to 

move toward Baghdad. 

Mr. Speaker, the launch of the operations and the ground forces and, incidentally, those ground forces were led 

by Army Lieutenant General David 

McKiernan. He was the commanding 

general of the Combined Forces Land 

Component Command. They crossed 

the line of departure from the Kuwaiti 

desert into Southern Iraq, and they had 

to go about 600 kilometers to get to 

Baghdad. We covered that distance in 

record time. And I don’t know how 

many people in Congress or in the 

American populace remember it, but 

you had many commentators, many 

armchair commentators stating that 

the United States forces would be 

bogged down, that Secretary of Defense 

Don Rumsfeld had not sent enough 

forces, and that we would see this operation grind to a halt and we would take 

heavy casualties. They were wrong, 

and Tommy Franks’ forces, in fact, you 

would have talk shows in which the 

commentator or the guest would be 

talking about American forces bogging 

down, and his statement would be interrupted by a news flash that Tommy 

Franks’ forces had taken yet another 

one of Saddam Hussein’s strongholds. 

So we drove on to Baghdad. And on 

March 21, in fact, Iraq’s 51st Army Division, which was estimated to be 

about 8,000 personnel, surrendered and 

deserted at Iraq’s southern border. 

The main ground effort was led by 

U.S. Army Fifth Corps under Lieutenant General William Wallace. Fifth 

Corps moved along a western route up 

to Baghdad, and the First Marine Expeditionary Force, 1MEF, under General 

James Conway, now the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps, moved along the 

more urban route closer to the border 

with Iran, on the east side. They took 

the far southern port of Umm Kasar. 

The main Marine force encountered 

some resistance as they pushed north, 

in particular, An Nasariya. 

Mr. Speaker, I can remember talking 

with a young Marine who had some injuries and was at Bethesda hospital 

shortly after that operation, and he 

talked about how much he loved those 

Marine tanks when he was pinned down 

by fire coming from several buildings 

at An Nasariya, and these big Marine 

tanks came whipping in, laid some 

heavy fire on the Feyadeen who were 

laying down these torrents of RPG fire; 

that’s rocket propelled grenades. And 

they rushed out, that is the Feyadeen 

did, after being hit with several tank 

volleys, and surrendered to the Marines 

at that choke point. 

In the west, the Army faced a longer 

distance but a less populated terrain. 

And Fifth Corps began combat operations with two divisions under its 

command, the Third ID under Major 

General Blunt, and the 101st Airborne 

Division, the 101st under Major General 

David Petraeus. 

The Third ID led the western charge 

to Baghdad. They moved speedily 

through the south. They reached Saddam International Airport on April 4 of 

2003. At that point the division 

launched the first of what it called 

‘‘thunder runs.’’ And a ‘‘thunder run’’ 

was a fast armored strike going right 

into the heart of Baghdad. And according to the Brigade Commander in 

Charge, General David Perkins, the 

Americans wanted to ‘‘create as much 

confusion as they could inside the 

city.’’ And the second purpose was to 

make sure that no one in that city, 

whether it was a member of the Iraqi 

population or an Iraqi leader, had any 

doubt that the city had fallen and the 

Americans were in charge. 

The 101st followed the Third ID up 

the western route into Southern Iraq,