```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H146-H152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     THE AMERICAN ECONOMY AND HONORING BRIGADIER GENERAL RED BROWN

  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. Madam Speaker, this weekend, a very important event will 
take place at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas. My friend, fellow Texas 
Aggie, constituent, and citizen soldier Colonel James ``Red'' Brown 
will be promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. This American hero 
deserves to have tribute paid here today on the floor of the United 
States House of Representatives for his outstanding and devoted service 
to this country. Red's experiences and accomplishments are far too 
extensive to be able to cover during my limited time, but it is clear 
he is an example of true patriotism.
  Newly promoted General Brown received his commission in the United 
States Army in May of 1980 from the ROTC program at Texas A&M 
University. He is a graduate of Armor Officer Basic and Advanced 
Courses, Combined Arms Staff Services School, the Command and General 
Staff College, and the Army War College.
  He had served as a company battalion and brigade commander. Colonel 
Brown, soon to be General Brown, had also served as Assistant Chief of 
Staff for Civil Military Affairs in Bosnia-Herzegovina during 
Stabilization Force Seven, as well as Assistant Chief of Staff for 
Operations of the 49th Armored Division for 3 years.
  Just a few of his awards include the Bronze Star for bravery and 
gallantry as well as the Combat Action Badge awarded in Iraq, three 
Army commendation medals, several Meritorious Service medals, and the 
Legion of Merit.
  During Operation Iraqi Freedom, he commanded the 56th Brigade Combat 
Team, which was comprised of six battalions with 31 companies and over 
4,000 soldiers. When his 56th Brigade was sent to Iraq, it was the 
largest deployment of troops from the Texas reserve since World War II.
  It was a great honor for me to be there at Baylor Stadium in December 
of 2005 to be part of the massive homecoming, welcoming these brave 
servicemembers when they returned home from Iraq.
  During their commitment in Iraq, Colonel Brown and his men conducted 
convoy escort and route security missions throughout the country. As 
you will recall, that was quite an historic year for Iraqis and for 
those all over the world who value freedom, because thanks to the 
heroic efforts of then Colonel Brown and his 56th Brigade and so many 
others there in the United States military, the Iraqis elected their 
first true representatives to lead a democratic form of government. 
Though terrorists tried to instill fear among the locals with prevalent 
threats of persecution and death, the Iraqis were determined to venture 
to the polls and to participate in democracy because the hope they were 
given by the supportive American servicemembers, such as Red, was 
greater than any fear.
  I have hanging in my office a photo, very dear to me, of Colonel 
Brown and of other members of his brigade, proudly holding an Aggie 
flag that I had taken over when I had visited there. It is framed and 
signed by all of those in the picture there in Iraq.
  My friend General Brown has dedicated his life to and has risked it 
for the service of this great country. There are countless people 
across the world who will never know the benefits and inspiration 
they've experienced as a result of General Brown's sacrifice. His 
sacrifice did not stop while he was on active duty.
  As a civilian, he is also heavily involved in service to our local 
area--serving on the board of directors of the Boys and Girls Club of 
East Texas, the Lindale Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Council of 
the Lindale First United Methodist Church. He was even elected to the 
Lindale School Board where he has served also honorably and as 
president of the board. I know he doesn't do it for recognition or for 
praise because I know his heart, but General Red Brown deserves to be 
honored and thanked for his unwavering example of patriotism and 
selflessness.
  So congratulations are extended on the promotion to Brigadier 
General. No one is more deserving of such an honored promotion.
  May God bless General Red Brown, his wonderful wife, Jane, and his 
delightful, beautiful children Hannah and Crystal for being such a 
great blessing to this Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield at this time to the gentleman 
from New Jersey, who is a dear friend. It's hard to find anybody more 
insightful in this body.
  Mr. Scott Garrett from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for that and for the 
insightful comments. Maybe I should just begin with the gentleman from 
Utah for his comments with regard to the economy and the stimulus.
  The gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you. I appreciate that pass-off very 
quickly here.
  The comments of Congressman Gohmert about General Brown, I think, are 
appropriate as a beginning for this entire discussion about the 
stimulus. As he has been sacrificing his all for this country, it is 
our job to try and make sure that there is a country that is worthy of 
that sacrifice and that commitment that he will have.
  I just want to talk very briefly because we have some great experts 
here on the economy of this country who will say something.
  Just on a personal approach, I am one of those who was a product of 
kind of a ``yours and our'' family. My father, who was a newlywed with 
a young son--my oldest brother--during the Depression, lost his job 
during the depths of that Depression, and my mother was a recent widow 
with two young sons under 5 with no job at the same time. My father 
went for 2 years during the depths of the Depression without a full-
time job. I realize the difficulty in talking to him of what he went 
through and of what the family went through. Indeed, he was saved by 
the creation of a government job during that time period.
  I came around about 20 years after this event, and my father always 
cautioned me at the time that the government job that saved him was a 
temporary job, that when the government decided to close the program, 
the job went away at the same time, and he was back to the same issue 
of finding a job that had been created on the economy, an economy 
created job.
  So, as we deal with the stimulus issue, I recognize that this 
stimulus package that we have without any details--it's just a concept 
still floating around--that is taxpayer-funded can have a profound 
effect on individuals and can have a profound effect on the economy, 
but if it is to be successful in the long term, it must be successful 
in encouraging and in stimulating private-sector jobs in the economy. 
That's the long-term solution.
  One of the former leaders of this body once said, ``Between invention 
and innovation, you have to have investment, and investment only 
happens if there is an expectation of return.'' If we do not include as 
part and parcel of our attempt to reinvigorate this economy an 
aggressive tax reduction policy, not only for individuals but for 
business, we do not promote that expectation of return. An aggressive 
tax reduction policy for the business sector will provide stability to 
the business and will encourage them to reinvest real money into real 
long-term jobs that will not be dependent on the taxpayer largess to 
take place.

[[Page H147]]

  I think, just from my personal experience and from the experience and 
insight my father told me, that is what we have to look at as we look 
into this overall package. I would add just one last comment as well.
  You know, we talked a great deal about energy a while ago. I hope it 
was not one of those things that we mentioned in August so we can check 
it off the box because gas prices are down again, but the reality is 
OPEC has already voted to cut oil production. Chavez has said he needs 
the cost of a barrel of oil to double if he is going to continue on 
with his foreign involvement policies and practices. If this country 
wants to have a good economic future, we have to have energy security 
that is self-sufficient. If we cannot in all of our efforts to try and 
build a healthy economy secure our economic future, we will never 
secure long-term economic health.
  With that, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to just 
interpose myself in this discussion of whatever this stimulus package 
may be since there are no details with it yet.
  I would yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey, and I appreciate 
the words of the gentleman from Texas as an introduction to this, and I 
look forward to the rest of the discussion.
  Mr. GOHMERT. If I may reclaim my time briefly, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for being a dear friend and colleague.
  I heard your comments earlier about the University of Utah. What an 
extraordinary year they've had. I get the impression nobody has given 
Utah anything. They have gone through a season undefeated because they 
worked hard and they earned it. So what we've seen with football teams 
that get give-aways is that they don't tend to do as well, and they 
don't have the discipline. Utah certainly has that. Now, if we would 
just get to a 16-team playoff, then we could give everybody that same 
opportunity to claim the national championship.
  I thank my friend from Utah, and I would yield back to my friend from 
New Jersey, Mr. Garrett.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Again, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
your comments. They are always insightful, and that's why I led off by 
referring over to your for those insightful comments. Now I will just 
make a couple of comments.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Texas for leading this Special Order 
this afternoon, this Friday afternoon, as Congress goes back to their 
districts. As the gentleman from Georgia indicated earlier, this is an 
abbreviated session of Congress. I'm not sure why we spend 5 days in a 
week to do about 2-days' worth of work, but this gives us the 
opportunity to talk about an issue, of course, that is extremely 
important to the American public, something that they are looking to 
Washington to begin to address, albeit over an extended period of time 
and in discussion as opposed to legislation.
  I am just going to make three points while I'm at the microphone. The 
first point is: Who pays? The second question is: For what? The third 
point really goes into what the gentleman from Utah was referring to a 
moment ago: For how long?
  The first point of who pays: As for the gentleman from the other side 
of the aisle, who was just speaking previously, the gentleman from the 
great State of Ohio, I agreed with him on a number of his points that 
he was making with regard to the expansive powers of the Federal 
Reserve and the necessity for Congress to reexercise its authority in 
fiscal and in monetary matters and to address that issue.
  I did have a question for him or a concern with one point that he 
made. He said, right now, when it comes to infrastructure projects 
across the country, there is a great need, and I concur with that, and 
he raised the question or the statement: But they cannot be paid for by 
the local or State or--and I assume he also means--county or municipal 
governments right now. So he's inferring that, if they can't pay for 
it, somehow or other, the Federal Government can.

  You know, at the end of the day, when it comes to paying for any of 
our services, all of the money that we have comes out of our own 
pockets as taxpayers, whether you pay your local town tax or your 
county property tax or your State income tax and so on and so forth. It 
all comes out of our own taxpayer pockets. So it really doesn't matter 
whether you say the States or locals can't pay because, at the end of 
the day, come April 15, those same citizens will be paying the Federal 
Government for those very same projects.
  So as to the question of who pays: It's the American taxpayer who is 
going to be on the hook for those very same infrastructure projects 
whether local, State or county pays for it or whether some miraculously 
comes out of the Federal Government's Treasury as well.
  So the point is: Who pays? You do. The American taxpayer will pay for 
whatever this stimulus package may be whether it's $100 billion, $500 
billion, $1 trillion. We're looking at right now a $1.2 trillion 
deficit as we speak, care of Senator Reid and Nancy Pelosi from the 
110th Congress. Basically, that is what Senator Obama is inheriting, 
and it's on top of that that we'll be spending, maybe, another $1 
trillion. Who will pay for that? Well, it is the American taxpayer.
  The second point is: For what? What will we be paying for--earmarks? 
Well, the other side of the aisle will say, no, there aren't going to 
be any earmarks in this, but mark my words; there will be things akin 
to earmarks, and I think that the American taxpayer is smart enough 
with this. It will be pork. Let me give you just an example. Again, the 
idea is, well, we'll pay for infrastructure, and that's all good when 
you talk about infrastructure being roads and bridges and water and 
sewer supplies and what have you. Well, let's see what some of the 
requests have already been to this new administration.
  Down in Florida in the city of Miami, they're talking about some 
great infrastructure projects such as a water slide, BMX dirt bike or 
trail bike trails, a beach museum. That's the type of infrastructure 
they're talking about looking forward to going back to the States. How 
about in the great State of Rhode Island where they're talking about 
such things as a polar bear exhibit or better soccer fields up there as 
well?

                              {time}  1445

  That's the type of thing that your tax dollars will be going to.
  How about over in Vermont? They're putting in a request to spend 
$150,000 of your tax dollars to go to a more efficient street sweeping 
machine. Now, I'm sure they will be able to suck up a lot of the dirt 
and debris around the town a lot better with your tax dollars going 
into it. And isn't that really the problem, that this machine really 
will be sucking up more of our tax dollars as will this entire stimulus 
package?
  So what is this money going for? It will be going for all of the same 
sorts of earmark pork projects that you have seen and been dismayed 
about out of the Congress in the past but be magnified to the extent of 
$1 trillion.
  And the third point is for how long--and this is what the gentleman 
from Utah was making--for how long.
  We will go on for as long as the trillion dollars pork project will 
continue to be spent out of Washington. It will not really be making 
permanent jobs. The Obama administration talks about wanting to create 
3 million new jobs, 80 percent of them they hope to be private sector 
jobs. That means, of course, 20 percent of them will therefore be 
public sector job. I can do the math in my head. That comes out to be 
around 600,000 new public sector jobs, which is around 50 some-odd 
percent if he threw the postal service out of the Federal Government as 
we exist right now.
  Where will those jobs be in a year from now or so after this project 
is spent? They will be out. So if you have got one of those good paying 
jobs, those jobs will end, and so will this program.
  So who pays? The American taxpayer pays. For what? For more pork. How 
long will it last? Only as long as this largesse out of the Federal 
Government lasts.
  What we need in the end--and I can conclude on this and yield back to 
the gentleman from Texas--is a program that will create new jobs, that 
will create jobs that will be new careers for individuals in this 
country, jobs not on the public dole but in the private sector. How do 
you accomplish that? By creating a private sector jobs initiative to 
incentivize the private sectors to take their literally trillions of 
dollars

[[Page H148]]

that are on the sidelines right now and to invest them into the 
economy, to invest them into the creation of new jobs. And if you do 
that, that will move the economy forward. The banks will be more than 
willing to lend again because the individuals out there will have jobs 
to be able to pay back their loans, and we will be reestablishing the 
strong economy that this country was known for for decades and for 
centuries as well. That is the direction we should be going for.
  And that's why I thank the gentleman from Texas for leading this talk 
in this special hour tonight on how to really stimulate the economy and 
how to really create jobs for this country.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from New Jersey. Great insights, great 
points, three great points. Dear friend pastor from Tyler, Paul Powell, 
said when he was in seminary, he asked one of his preaching professors, 
How many points should you have in a perfect sermon? And the professor 
said, I think you ought to have at least one.
  So I really appreciate the gentleman having three excellent points, 
and I appreciate the contribution.
  At this time I would like to yield to someone who has an amazing mind 
that got him CPA certified, and here he is in Congress trying to help 
the laws become better and especially on financial matters. So I would 
like to yield to my friend, Mr. Mike Conaway from Midland, Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank my colleague from Tyler and Longview and 
Marshall and Henderson and all points east of Fort Worth. I appreciate 
his hosting this hour today.
  As we talk about President-elect Obama's stimulus package, I am very 
mindful that he currently has something north of a 65 to 70 percent 
approval rating. So you really don't want to pick a fight right off the 
bat with a fella who's in that high regard across the United States. 
But so I think as a minimum, we ought to give him a chance to begin to 
put some meat on the bone of all of these great ideas that have been 
kind of at the--not even the 10,000-foot level but at the 50,000-foot 
level and looking forward to the actual legislative language as to how 
some of this stuff is going to work.
  I applaud him for calling for no earmarks and for transparency and 
accountability. That's exactly what we want to do. I'm particularly 
encouraged that Vice President Biden has committed to oversee the 
spending of every single dollar personally. Given the growing size of 
this bill, he is going to be one very busy Vice President as he puts 
his green eyeshade on, his garters, and pulls his sleeves up, gets out 
his pen, and actually watches the writing of each one of those checks 
as he committed to doing the other day.
  I am a bit discouraged, though, that the overall process that was 
announced yesterday that he believed--our new President believes that 
he can spend, or we can collectively spend our way out of this current 
economic recession, depression--whatever you want to call it, whatever 
title you want to give it--I'm concerned that that's not an accurate 
way to do this.
  One way to look at this would be to say, all right. If government 
spending is a panacea for the economy, if it will build a great 
economy, then looking at the spending, the government spending for the 
last 2 years--which I believe this Federal Government has spent more 
money in the last 2 years than any other 2-year period in history--that 
certainly didn't drive a wonderful economy. We're in a bad economy 
right now. So if the premise is government spending builds economies, 
then we ought to be in a good economy right now. Quite frankly, we 
aren't in that economy.
  The centerpiece, as both of our colleagues have talked about, is job 
creation. And at the end of the day, it really should be about jobs.
  I participated in a needs assessment in Midland County back in the 
United Way days. It was a zillion years ago. It was a process where you 
went through and asked people what was going on in their homes, what 
was going on in the neighborhoods, in local communities, what were the 
problems, what were the issues. We culled that down through some 
science to the top 10 needs for the Midland community.
  If you looked at those 10, nine of those 10 would have been favorably 
addressed by a job, by somebody having a job. And so it is--in an arena 
where hyperbole is the norm, it's difficult to overstate how important 
jobs are to an economy. And that's just the foundation, the base of 
those.
  I would also argue, though, that government jobs--and my colleague 
and I from Texas have two really good government jobs. These government 
jobs that we have, we make money at it, and they are here forever. And 
some government jobs will always be here forever.
  But the jobs that would be created with the program that's been, you 
know, kind of highlighted at the 50,000-foot level, those jobs 
shouldn't be forever. And when you don't talk about forever with a job, 
then that job is, by nature, temporary; and since it's temporary, it's 
hard for families to make plans based on a temporary job. It's hard for 
communities to plan on those--the impact that those jobs have.
  So that temporariness of those government jobs lends itself to 
continued uncertainty, to continued anxiety about what happens when 
this ends, what happens when this is over as opposed to a business that 
comes into or locates into a community, begins to put down roots and 
build jobs and build wealth, add to the local tax rolls. All of the 
kinds of things the private sector jobs do, those have a sense of 
permanency to them that is just right. That makes sense to us.
  And I would argue that whatever we do on a go-forward basis, that we 
focus more on private sector jobs and do whatever we can to avoid 
creating government jobs because once you put people on the government 
payroll, it's hard to get them off and it does not build wealth.
  I would also like to point out that while our current circumstances 
are dire and difficult and hard and there is a lot of pain in the 
country right now, it is temporary. As we've seen, expanding economies 
are temporary. We've enjoyed about a 7- or 8-year good run with the 
expanding economy. Everybody enjoys that. New jobs are created, new 
wealth is created, opportunities. Everybody likes that. But those are 
temporary as we've now seen with this contracting economy.
  Well, the converse is true as well. Contracting economies are 
temporary. They may last a lot longer than we'd like, a lot longer than 
we'd enjoy, but at the end of the day, this world economy, this U.S. 
economy will turn the corner and will begin to expand.

  So as we look at what we do to address this issue, let's be careful 
that we don't take money to be earned by future generations to fix a 
temporary issue that we're dealing with. I would argue that my 
colleagues' and my generation, the last 4 years we have elevated this 
idea of taking somebody else's money--in most instances it's our 
grandkids and great grandkids and great-great grandchildren's money--
and let's fix today's problems. Which means that we have robbed our 
future generations of the money that they're going to earn that they 
should have available to them to address their problems. Because they 
will have problems. There is nothing we can do today that's going to 
fix everything permanently, and those future generations have a right 
to the money they earn by the sweat of their brow. The problem is you 
and I are spending it. Collectively.
  There's plenty of blame to go around. This isn't a partisan issue. 
Democrats, Republicans bear equal blame in this regard that we've 
constantly become addicted, in effect, to using borrowed money to 
address issues. And the issue we're going to address over the next 
several weeks is this economy, and everything I've heard so far is that 
we're going to use borrowed money.
  I was in Fredericksburg, Texas, back in October doing a town hall 
meeting at an elementary school. If my colleagues have never done a 
town hall meeting in an elementary school, I would encourage it because 
you get some of the best questions ever from fifth graders.
  I was doing my best Q&A kind of thing, and this little fella in the 
second row raised his hand, and I recognized him, and he said, Mr. 
Congressman, what is the plan to pay off the national debt?
  And I said, Excuse me?
  He said, Yes, sir. What's the plan to pay off the national debt?
  And I said, Young man, that is the single best question I have been 
asked while I've been in Congress.

[[Page H149]]

  There is no plan to pay off the national debt. Every dollar that we 
borrow is, in effect, permanently borrowed forever. Let's just take an 
example. I'm a CPA so some of this comes a little bit easy to me. We've 
got $11 trillion in hard debt. Debt we've got paper on, not counting 
the promises of Social Security, Medicare, and all of that. We've got 
$11 trillion.
  In order to pay that off, this government has to run an $11 trillion 
surplus counting the interest. It's more than that if you've got 
interest. Given the history of the last 42 years, we've, I think, run 
surpluses 3 of those years. Thirty-nine of them or forty-one of them, 
whatever the number is, have been deficits.
  So if anyone in their right mind thinks this Federal Government, 
given the propensity we have for spending other people's money, can run 
a $12 or $11 trillion surplus in order to pay off the national debt, 
they are delusional beyond all words.
  Now, at a minimum, the first thing that we ought to do is quit doing 
what's gotten us to this point. Quit spending money we don't have. You 
know, it's--across the aisle we've got two seemingly desperate ways of 
doing things. On our side we want to cut taxes, and the other side 
spends money but doesn't raise taxes. It ought to be this way: If 
you're going to spend the money, then have the political backbone to 
raise the taxes; or if you're not going to raise the taxes, have the 
political backbone to not spend the money.
  Well, we've had it on our side where we spent the money and borrowed 
it, and the other side wants to spend the money and raise taxes. And 
all we've done is spend money that we don't have. It's not ours. No 
family gets to do that, no small business gets to do that, no other 
government entity I'm aware of, other than the Federal Government, gets 
to do that.
  My preference, if we're going to have some sort of a stimulus work, 
would be to focus on tax policy, the money that's earned by good 
citizens, and that we, at the point of a badge, take away from them. 
That tax policy ought to be stable, it ought to be predictable, it 
ought to be put in place. It allows them to keep more of their money 
and create those private sector jobs.
  Let's take the example of businesses. Section 179 allows businesses 
to deduct immediately in the year of purchase a certain amount of money 
that they spend on equipment that they use in their business. By being 
able to deduct that, the taxes they would otherwise have paid on that 
amount of money, they can recycle into their business by hiring new 
people, investing in new product, investing in new capacity. All those 
kinds of things.
  So that, in my view, is a much more appropriate stimulus of the 
economy than to collect a bunch of money here in Washington D.C. and 
then begin to try to parcel it out across some of the projects that our 
colleague from New Jersey was talking about earlier in terms of how 
that money is going to be spent under the, quote-unquote, stimulus 
package and the conference of mayors, you know. The shopping list that 
they've gone through is, in my view, a much better way to try to 
stimulate this economy.
  Truth be told, at the end of the day, the Federal Government has 
precious little to do with whether or not the economy expands or 
contracts. That's driven by the decisions of millions of Americans to 
decide whether or not they're going to buy something new, whether or 
not they're making enough money to be able to afford that, whether or 
not their business--prospects for their business is good enough that 
they'll go to the bank and borrow money and continue to begin to turn 
this corner.

                              {time}  1500

  Those decisions are made all over the United States, all over the 
world by good, honest folks and not governments. So we sometimes delude 
ourselves into thinking that--and most of us are of the kind of 
personality that we came here to fix stuff; we came here to make this 
country a better place; we came here to do all those kinds of things. 
Sometimes it's not our job.
  Our propensity is that we want to fix stuff, we want to do things to 
help this country. And when we see a problem as staggering and 
difficult as this one, we think that there's something we in fact can 
do, and we feel almost inadequate when we propose not doing something. 
But maybe in this instance, letting us absorb the pain and understand 
that in a deleveraging circumstance, when you're paying off debt as we 
are right now, that that does not grow an economy, but that does lay 
the foundation for that future economy that will begin to expand that 
we will all enjoy on a go forward basis.
  So if anybody remembers one thing I've said today, it is, let's begin 
to look and lay a foundation for stopping fixing temporary problems 
with permanent debt that we're borrowing from future generations and 
are hamstringing them and are hobbling their ability to take care of 
their issues when they are grown and in our position.
  So I appreciate my colleague for hosting this hour today.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank my friend from Midland, Mr. Conaway. I guess 
it's that trained certified public accountant mind that sees with such 
clarity. You know, you've got your debits and your credits, and you 
come here to Congress and it should balance. And I appreciate the 
clarity that all your training and experience has given.
  I ran across some quotes here that are right in line with what my 
friend from Midland has been saying. Here's a quote from Dr. Richard 
Wagner, Professor of Economics at George Mason University. He said, 
``The government can increase its spending only by reducing private 
spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending 
by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the 
added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, 
private spending is generally more efficient than the government 
spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when 
they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money.'' 
What an insightful quote.
  Another quote, ``As Congress and President-elect Obama work together 
to help middle class families and get our economy back on track, the 
deficit estimate makes it clearer than ever that we cannot borrow and 
spend our way back to prosperity when we're already running an annual 
deficit of more than $1 trillion. The reality is that the decisions we 
make today will impact future generations, and burying our children and 
grandchildren under a mountain of debt to pay for more wasteful 
government spending would be the height of irresponsibility.''
  I've come to know so many wonderful people on both sides of the aisle 
in my 4 years that I've been here. There may be somebody in this body 
that doesn't like children, but I don't know who it would be. I find a 
commonality of just a real love for children. You see children come 
onto the floor under 12 are allowed here. We saw the rostrum, the dais 
just completely covered up with children as Speaker Pelosi was sworn 
in. And children just bring a smile when you see these wholesome, 
refreshing children, bright eyes, full of hope gathered around. But it 
breaks your heart when you realize the kind of debt we're loading these 
children up with. I mean, nobody in this body I know of would 
intentionally go about harming any child, but we're doing it 
unintentionally.
  It has historically been the general nature of mankind, it's not true 
with all species, but with mankind generally--except for some 
exceptions of some really horrible people--mankind's nature is to 
protect our children; and in this body, while I've been here, we've 
continued to load them up. And President-elect Obama talked about 
change and hope. And frankly, the Democrats had been spending way too 
much money in the eighties and in the 1990s up to `95. There were a few 
years there where Republicans were doing the right thing, and then they 
couldn't help themselves, they started spending money like crazy, 
loading up the kids with more debt than they will ever be able to pay. 
And I was really--and am still--holding out hope that the change that 
we can get and we need the most from this administration coming in is 
quit killing our children with debt, just overloading them with debt.
  And, you know, the change is not going to come by throwing money at 
the economy; we've been doing that for the last 4 months, it has 
accomplished

[[Page H150]]

nothing. There are some great insightful writings and thoughts from 
economists now that, although it was the most incredibly good of 
intentions through the thirties, the economy did not get help, despite 
all the massive spending and government programs, until World War II. 
So as people here have heard me say many times, I think the number one 
duty of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense.
  We need to have defense spending. And invariably every time an 
administration comes in and seeks their cuts by cutting the military, 
cutting spending with defense contractors, then our military gets at a 
low point. And as President Ronald Reagan had said, you know, no 
country ever gets attacked because people perceive it as being too 
strong, they perceive it as being vulnerable, so they attack it.
  It is always a good thing, and preventative, when a nation is strong 
militarily. We don't need to be cutting the military, we don't need to 
be cutting defense spending. In fact, when the government is going to 
spend and help the economy, it ought to be on things that government 
has to do anyway.
  So when we look at some of the proposed projects in which funding is 
being sought and maybe spent, some of the things that have been listed 
so far as being ready to go, shovel ready, ready to have money, 
$350,000 for an Albuquerque, New Mexico fitness center, we need to make 
our people more physically fit. I have been deeply troubled that with 
all the emphasis on No Child Left Behind, we've cut art programs, we've 
cut music programs, we've cut all kinds of programs that really can 
make people a more whole person, and that includes physical fitness.
  You know, when I was a kid and President Kennedy proposed physical 
fitness for children, I really didn't like it. I thought he ought to 
mind his own business, actually. But I can tell you that the physical 
fitness programs that were instituted--and that wasn't a mandate, it 
wasn't a requirement, it was an encouragement, he led by encouraging. 
And schools started having physical fitness programs and the kids got 
better off physically which made them better off mentally. And to see 
the obesity that has resulted, we don't need, as a Federal Government, 
to start telling people you can't buy fast foods, you can't eat this, 
you can't eat that. Just everybody exercise, and then push that with 
the children; set those good patterns early and that will take care of 
itself. It teaches discipline, and that is something that far too many 
in this body have not been able to overcome.
  Now, one of the things that you learn in law school is to rationalize 
almost anything. You get good at it. If you become a good lawyer, you 
get good at rationalizing basically any conduct--or you can. And I see 
people that have been here in Congress for many years, many that did 
not go to law school, and they have gotten so good at rationalizing 
they can rationalize almost anything. We don't need to be doing that. 
We need to be getting to what helps.
  But I've heard people try to rationalize on this floor, in this 
Congress in the 4 years I've been here. And I never seek to impose my 
religious beliefs on anyone else, but I enjoy it when people quote 
Scripture. And I've heard Scripture quoted on this floor many times, 
but often it's during tax debate. And I've heard people ridiculing, you 
know, some of you Republicans say you're a Christian, but Jesus said 
take care of the widows and orphans; Jesus said, even as you've done to 
the least of these, my children, you've done to me; Jesus said do unto 
others as you would have them to do unto you; and here you guys are 
wanting to cut give away programs to all these different people. But 
I've searched Scripture, and for those who like to rely on it, you can 
look, Jesus never said, Go ye, therefore, use and abuse your taxing 
authority, take somebody else's money and give it away. He said you do 
it. ``You'' do it. You do it individually. You help. You reach out. You 
give with your money, you give with what you have. Don't go abusing 
your power as a Member of Congress to take from somebody else to give; 
do it and you will be the beneficiary. That was the teaching, not for 
government to take other people's money. Because what is taxation? It's 
theft. Although we legalize it, therefore, it's legal theft. We take 
somebody else's money and we use it the way we want to use it.
  So, that is a concern. Here's another quote from an assistant 
professor of economics, Justin Ross, from the School of Public and 
Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. He says, ``The empirical 
evidence overwhelmingly rejects Federal Government deficit spending as 
the best method for stimulating the economy, and it is generally 
unsupportive of it having any stimulus effect at all.'' We saw that all 
through the thirties. No matter how much money the government gave 
away, no matter how many government programs, there was nothing 
permanent about what was done.
  Now, we hear a lot of people say that this is the worst economy in 70 
years and 80 years, going back to the thirties, it rivals those days. I 
was mentioning before, but I had a man over 90 years old approach me in 
my district say he was sick and tired of people saying that, that what 
we're going through right now has no comparison. For people that are 
out of work, it even has no comparison to the 1930s because there were 
times, he said, when we would go a couple of days without even eating, 
and now people get upset and think they're broke if they don't have two 
or three cars, computers, cell phones, and that kind of thing. They had 
none of that.
  And you go back to the late seventies, early eighties before the big 
tax cut by President Reagan and we had double-digit inflation, we had 
double-digit unemployment. We're not even close to double-digit 
inflation. But if we keep throwing away money and printing money like 
crazy and borrowing and trying to tax more, then we're headed for 
major, major trouble.
  But you go back to the late seventies, early eighties, and the 
research we've done indicates that key industries that experienced a 
big downturn as a result of the recession in the late seventies, early 
eighties were housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production. 
And these did not see a recovery until much later.
  I might also say, for those who look for answers in Scripture I 
referred to earlier, when people have criticized me for not wanting to 
take other people's money to give it away to my charity of choice, that 
they would prefer to do it, I brought that up and someone said, oh, 
well, that's not being very Christian. And I point them to the example 
of Zacchaeus. Because if you look at Zacchaeus and his example, the 
first thing he did after he met Jesus was to go cut taxes. And, in 
fact, not only did he cut taxes, he gave a four-for-one rebate, as I 
recall, to those who he had wronged. And I have no doubt that in 
cutting taxes after he met Jesus that he stimulated the economy all 
around because it meant the government wasn't getting that money, the 
tax collectors weren't getting that money, people were able to spend 
their own.
  Now, I was really amazed when some of us, a bipartisan group of 
Members of Congress, went to China a few years ago, and talking to CEOs 
and since then talking to other CEOs, why was your industry moved to 
China? Because I figure the answer is going to be cheaper labor; we 
didn't have to deal with labor unions; easier environmental--the number 
one answer was not any of those things. They said our quality control 
was so good in the United States, Americans just really make good 
products.

                              {time}  1515

  But the number one answer was that the corporate tax rate in China 
was so much cheaper than it is here. And you look around the world at 
where economies are growing, and they have dropped corporate rates. 
They have dropped capital gains rates so people are able to keep more 
of their own money.
  And what we see, we have seen over and over going back to President 
Kennedy, President Reagan and the early days of President Bush. When 
you drop the tax rate, the economy is encouraged, expands, and you get 
even more revenue back into the coffers of the government. So everybody 
comes out ahead.
  Now, some of the other things we've heard about the Democratic 
stimulus package that is being worked on is that it could virtually 
triple the current year's deficit. What we've been hearing

[[Page H151]]

is that it will grow a deficit that's about a 50 percent increase over 
the post-World War II record of 6 percent.
  Also, we've been told, as my friend from New Jersey alluded to, that 
20 percent of the 3 million jobs that President-elect Obama wants to 
create are in government. We don't produce a whole lot in government. 
Some would say what we produce is not worth producing and is more 
harmful than good. Regardless, we don't need 600,000 new government 
jobs. That is overloading the economy with government. And as former 
Senator Gramm used to say, When we have more people in the wagon than 
pulling the wagon, the wagon's going to stop and the country will be 
economically dead at that point.
  Spending, though, disguised as tax cuts is not a tax cut. As many 
writers have said, if we want to stimulate the economy, what we really 
need to do is have a tax cut. That's why I filed in December and have 
re-filed the first day we were in session this week a 2-month tax 
holiday bill, H.R. 143. I'm hoping that I will get to talk with someone 
in the incoming administration because President-elect Obama said he 
wanted to provide a tax cut for every American who made less than 
$250,000. My bill makes sure every wage earner, including self-employed 
businesses, get a two-twelfths tax cut for the year 2009. It's not just 
a stimulus package, but that is the result.
  But the fact is, if we in this body allowed people who earned the 
money to choose winners and not give money to people and companies they 
think are losers, then they make the decisions. And I can guarantee 
you, they're going to make better decisions than we've seen out of the 
Treasury department over the last 4 months. It's like we were reading a 
moment ago, when people spend their own money, they do it more wisely 
than when they're spending someone else's money, especially when we 
have the problems with accountability that government always has. It 
doesn't matter which administration is in office. When there is money 
to be given away by the government, accountability is a nightmare. It's 
a huge problem, and despite all the promises, we have got a Republican 
administration that's been in office the last 4 months during this huge 
bailout, but we have had a Democratic majority in the House, a 
Democratic majority in the Senate, and no matter which party is in 
charge, accountability has been disastrous when it comes to holding 
people's feet to the fire with government money. So it is not the 
answer to go throwing money at all these different things.
  Other proposed giveaways would be $94 million for a parking garage at 
the Orange Bowl in Miami. What a great bowl, what a great venue for 
football, but there doesn't need to be a Federal giveaway. $4.5 million 
for Greton, Florida, to bottle water with recycled bottles, well, 
that's a wonderful, noble goal. But what government should do is create 
incentives for other people to do good things. There's been too much of 
a problem with Congress that we decide we're just going to give away 
money, throw it at a problem, and think we have done a good thing.
  The highest and best use of this body over and above making sure that 
we provide for the common defense is encouraging people to do the best 
that they can with what they have, use their talents, use their God-
given potential.
  One of the things that drove me off the bench as a district judge and 
made me want to run for this office to get to serve here was as a judge 
handling felonies, I kept seeing more and more women come into my court 
that I had to sentence for a couple of things. One was for welfare 
fraud and another was for their involvement in dealing drugs. And you 
get a complete presentence investigation report on people's background, 
and I was amazed how similar so many of the stories were.
  And this is not a racial issue because, when I dealt with it, there 
were women of all races having the same problem. They would have 
somebody encourage them, because they were bored with high school, to 
drop out and have a baby because the government will send you a check. 
So they would drop out, have a baby, and they'd get a government check. 
And then they'd find out, it's not really enough for a baby and a woman 
to live on. So they would have another child and another child, and 
they kept getting further and further behind.
  And you go back to the 1960s and the great society and how well-
intentioned that was, but what occurred was the government saw single 
women having to provide for children with some deadbeat dad out there 
not helping. So, with the best of intentions and wanting to help, they 
said let's give them a check. So they started giving a check for every 
child that a woman could have out of wedlock. And when they come 40 
years later to my court to be sentenced, over and over I'm seeing women 
who are lured into this rut by the Federal Government well-intentioned 
giveaways, and they couldn't get out. We provided them no incentive to 
get out.
  I hear from people in housing projects that said, you know, we were 
trying to save a nest egg so we could move out of Federal housing 
someday and buy our own home. So we're saving up a down payment. Then 
we were told by some authorities that we had too much money in savings, 
that we either had to buy stuff or give it away or spend it somehow, 
get rid of it, or we'd have to move out of Federal housing. I mean, 
what's wrong with this? The Federal Government ought to be about 
encouraging people to do what's good for them because ultimately that's 
good for the country, and instead, we lure people into a rut and we 
don't let them out.
  And so some women would get desperate, and they'd realize I've got to 
get a job but I also need a handout from the government with the 
children. So they get a job, they wouldn't report that to the Federal 
welfare authorities, and they'd come before me as criminals for welfare 
fraud. Others would see how much money was being made in dealing drugs, 
and that's no way out of a rut. And it wasn't, because that's bad for 
everybody.
  But you come back to the premise, the Federal Government luring 
people into a rut with giveaway programs that don't let them out.
  Now, I am not sure exactly what the answer was in the 1960s 
specifically, but I know what the general answer is. The government 
should provide incentives to do the right thing. So instead of, you 
know, giving people a check and luring them into this rut they can 
never get out of, maybe we give them incentives to finish their 
education, help with day care. If we had done that, we wouldn't see 
this boom over the last 40 years of children without enough parents 
that care about them. So that's what we encouraged, and seriously we've 
gotten what we've paid for.
  We could drop the corporate tax. We could drop the cap gains tax. I 
get sick and tired of hearing people saying we'll never get 
manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Ridiculous. Of course we 
can. They've left because corporate taxes are a lot cheaper elsewhere, 
and people that come on to this floor and say, oh, let's don't tax the 
people, let's tax the corporations, that is so disingenuous because the 
fact is, corporations, if they don't pass that on and make their 
customers and clients pay, then they don't stay in business. The 
corporation doesn't pay that tax. It's a conduit, but it comes from the 
individuals getting their services. But it seems to be a good passing 
of the buck by Congress when we do that.
  But The Detroit News itself, home of our automakers, say, Tax cuts 
work best to stimulate the economy. If Congress agrees to take on this 
enormous debt in the name of stimulating the economy, it better do 
everything possible to keep it from becoming history's biggest pork 
barrel.
  The Pittsburgh PAPER said, As Club for Growth's Pat Toomey urges, the 
elimination of the capital gains rate would be the better solution.
  That's what is really needed is what National Review's Larry Kudlow 
said. A fool bore, supply-side tax rate reduction that could even morph 
into full-fledged corporate tax reform.
  That would be amazing. We'd get those jobs back overnight.
  And then with energy, we've had this big energy debate the last 6 
months, and now people have gone to sleep on the issue. We should not. 
We have still got to get energy independent.
  And we heard from experts who said if we will simply open up ANWR, 
and it isn't a beautiful, pristine area that is often depicted on 
television. There's

[[Page H152]]

nothing there. It's flat. There's not a better place on earth to drill 
because there's nothing there. Animals can't live there. If the caribou 
come, they have to pass through immediately because there's nothing 
there to live on. Drill there. We'd have a tiny footprint, and we were 
told that immediately we'd have 250,000 new jobs, and by the time they 
were ready for production, there would be 1 million new jobs. There's a 
third of President-elect Obama's promise of 3 million new jobs, and we 
don't have to give money away. We don't have to increase taxes. The 
private sector will take care of it. All we have to make sure is the 
environmental concerns are addressed so that we don't hurt the 
environment.
  We could increase the jobs immediately by opening up more of the 
Outer Continental Shelf. What an incredible stimulus that would be.
  A Boston Herald editorial said, a real stimulus bill--the expiring 
tax cuts are tax increases and history shows that tax increases in a 
recession, depression or recovery can be deadly. We should not go 
there.
  I often look at the seal on the dollar bill. It has a pyramid with a 
triangular eye actually at the top, representing the all-seeing eye of 
God, and the Latin phrase ``annuit coeptis''. That's Latin meaning He, 
God, has smiled on our undertaking.
  When we saddle those dear, sweet children that are alive today and 
their children with debt because we would not do the right thing, I 
don't see how God or anybody else can smile on our undertaking. We need 
to get back to things that bring smiles.

                          ____________________
```