Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 10, 2009, at 12:30 p.m., for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my friend from Ohio pointing out the problems that arise with the trade deficit. That has been a problem.

When I first came here and was sworn in on this House floor back January of 2005, what I began to hear from the other side of the aisle, correctly, was that the Republicans controlled the White House, they controlled the House, and controlled the Senate, and they are spending too much money. They are engaged in deficit spending, and it has to stop. And they were right.

In my first 2 years here, we had on some bills the White House asking for way too much money; and, to try to be a party that went along with the President, many of my colleagues would say we have got to do this, we are in charge, and money got spend when it shouldn't have been spent. And we should have been better about not having deficit spending, but we blew it, and the American voters called us on it, properly.

I say us. I was often not happy and on the contrary, and some in my party called me a troublemaker and still do. But we call them the way we see them. And the fact is, deficit spending was wrong when it was being done by a Republican White House and Congress, or requesting from the Congress and the Republican Congress was doing it, because it is the Congress that does the appropriations, and it is wrong today. And so in November of 2006, when the Democrats were put in the majority in both the House and the Senate, I was hoping we would see the end of deficit spending, just as they promised. But that is not what happened. The deficit spending has gotten increasingly higher, and now in the first few weeks of this new term it has hit an all-time high.

You can't spend your way to prosperity. It doesn't work when you are

spending your grandchildren and your great grandchildren's money. And you know, you have to know some day when we are dead and gone they are going to be cussing our names: Why did you run us up into such debt so we couldn't live like you did because you wouldn't control your spending? That is our obligation, and we owe so much better to the children and the generations to come.

There was a Rasmussen poll today that came out, and it says 45 percent of the American public are in favor of a tax cut-only stimulus bill. Stop the run-away spending on things that aren't stimulus. Why would Congress do that? Why did Congress do it, and why is it increasing in such a dramatic scale?

Well, there is an atmosphere of arrogance that is growing all the time in Washington that the people out there who are stimulating the economy, they are working, they are doing all they can, well, there are some in Washington who think they are just too stupid to spend the money so that it stimulates the economy, so we must have people in Washington, who know so much more and are so much better at spending other people's money, let the people in Washington spend the hard- working folks' money.

In the last couple of weeks we had $350 billion, the second half of that bailout that was such a mistake back in September, that other half has been allocated and approved. Then you add the $819 billion plus whatever the Senate is going to add, you put those together, it is around $1.2 trillion. Why is that a significant number? Because $1.2 trillion happens to be the amount basically that every individual income taxpayer in America will pay for 2008 income tax. You want to see the economy stimulated? You give back every dime that every individual taxpayer paid in 2008, you will see the economy stimulated.

I am not even advocating that. I am just saying, give people back their money in their next two paychecks, the next two months' paychecks, a 2-month tax holiday, a 16\2/3\ percent tax cut for this year. A study by Moody's Economy says that will increase the GDP more in 1 year than any other tax proposal out there. It would be a 2-month tax holiday. And for those who don't make enough to pay income tax, you get to keep your FICA, so everyone, just like President Obama promised, will get an income tax holiday. You will get your money back.

But I was told last week when President Obama--and you can't be in a room with that guy and not really like him. He is a likeable, smart, congenial man. And when I was telling him about the tax holiday idea, it is not 3 months, 6 months, next year, it is in your next paycheck. He wanted the idea talked about, and now Larry Summers won't call me back.

Mr. Chair, $350 billion last week and now with what we are going to add this week, it is about $1.2 trillion. The reason that is significant, that is basically the amount that every individual taxpayer paying together in 2008 paid into the U.S. Treasury.

We could give every taxpayer, individual taxpayer in America, all of their money back for last year. You want to see the economy explode, try that. That would be extraordinary.

Now we did too much deficit spending in the last 6 years when we were in the majority, and now the Democratic majority is doing the same thing. You can spend a country out of existence. Iceland just did it. The Soviet Union fell because they spent too much money trying to catch up with us. And we can do the same thing.

We owe more than this to our children and our grandchildren. In fact, when we elected a President who promised change, I really hoped we were going to have change and get away from the deficit spending of the last 8 years. But instead of getting change, what we are getting with the original bill here is much, much, much, much more of the same. We need to quit spending ourselves out of existence.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. Obviously he was mistaking me for Ted Poe, but I appreciate the comments.

That's right.

One of the things that really breaks my heart, though, about all of this, we can talk about it from a lofty level here in the second floor of the U.S. Capitol, but the truth is during the Bush terms of office, Republicans went from a time when they were the ones that balanced the budget in the 1990s, and they moved to a time when there was just euphoria. Yes, tax cuts happened, and as a result, record revenues just poured into the U.S. Treasury in greater amounts than ever before. It wasn't the tax cuts that were a problem. It wasn't the record revenue coming in. We, and it was before I got here, but we were spending too much money. In my first 2 years here beginning in January of 2005, we were spending too much money. It was a problem. We were not reining in money. And as a result, by November of 2006, people were sick of it. It was irresponsible, and it was so grossly unfair to our children and the generations to follow us, we got voted out of the majority. And Democrats talked about our irresponsible spending, that we were running up the deficit and it was so unfair to the children, according to the Democrats at that time. And the voters said, you're right, these Republicans have lost their way, get them out of the majority.

And now here we've seen with the Democratic majority, about an 80- vote margin in the House, a Democrat majority in the Senate, in a week's time, there has been $1.2 trillion in allocations above the budget. That's the same amount that all American income taxpayers will pay in for personal income tax for 2008. We'd have been better off telling everybody that paid individual taxes in America for the whole year you get all your money back.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. When you add the $350 billion that was just last week, then that gets you there.

But the thing is, as a judge, my friend Judge Carter, Judge Poe, we have sentenced people who have done irresponsible and just really unconscionable things to their children. We have sent them to prison. And here in this body has so loaded up our children and our grandchildren with debt that it is unconscionable. We're out here just throwing money around, and they're going to have to take care of that debt.

They didn't get the message. They told America, you put us in the majority and we will be more responsible. And what they have done is multiplied the irresponsibility, and it's heartbreaking.

The only reason we don't already have a runaway inflation with the kind of money that's been spent and printed and borrowed is because fuel went down by more than 50 percent. As fuel goes up for the summer, we're going to have runaway inflation, and nations have fallen for that reason.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

Actually, I got a number of positive inquiries from some of our Blue Dog friends. But as far as from the Speaker, there has been no interest in bringing it to the floor.

When I met President Obama yesterday, I brought it up to him and I said, This does everything you promised, giving a tax cut to everybody. I said, It doesn't have the $250,000 cap on income. We could add that. It does what you promised better than anything.

He said, Wow, have you talked to Larry? He was talking about Larry Summers, who was standing right there.

I said, No, I haven't.

He said, You guys need to talk.

I thank my friend from Texas, as well, Dr. Burgess and Dr. Gingrey. And I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But this all ties in together, when we're talking about health care, I had my staff pull the last numbers they could get. And for the year 2006, if you add together all of the Federal tax dollars that are spent on health care, and you add that to the State tax dollars that are spent on health care in the year 2006 per household, it was right around $8,400.

Well, $8,400 per household in America? You know, we have talked about health savings accounts and how that could restore power into the hands of the American public. That could restore the good old doctor-patient relationship. Because what we have right now is not a doctor-patient relationship. What we have is a doctor either insurance company or government patient relationship, because either the insurance companies or governments are between the doctor and the patient.

Well, man, some people, I have had retired folks say, well, I can't ever have a health savings account. I can never accumulate that money because I'm too old and I'm too sick to ever accumulate that money. But if you look at it, and you go, wow, $8,400, that was in 2006. Now it is even more than that. But you could give every household in America a $3,000 health savings account. And if you establish this relationship with you and your doctor, and then here is another $2,000 or $3,000 on top of that to buy your catastrophic care insurance, then you get back to a doctor-patient relationship.

But why would we not want to do that? Well, I would submit to you it's because there is a culture of arrogance in Washington, D.C., and it has been here for a while. It's not a new thing. It has been building. And I think it is one of the things that actually turned voters off about the Republican administration. I think the world of George W. Bush. I like that man. He is a good man. But he got some bad advice from some arrogant people. And look at what was done and the advice that was given. Heck, back in September, the advice was, well, we may have a depression, but if you will give me starting off $350 billion but maybe get to $700 billion, start with $350 billion, I can fix it. That is arrogance. The people in America are not smart enough to fix this. Give me the money, and I will fix it.

It permeates this town. It permeates this capital. It's an arrogance that says, ``the American people are just not smart enough. They wouldn't be able to go back to the doctor-patient relationship the way it used to be. They wouldn't be able to help the economy by spending their own money properly. Let's make them give it to us through taxes. And then we will spend it. Because they're just not smart enough to know how to spend it in a way that is best for them.''

And that is what we've got. So you have the Bush administration that took $350 billion, and Secretary Paulson, King Henry, was going to spend that in such a way that it would encourage lending and get the credit flowing and so people who had fallen behind on their mortgage could come forward and refinance and borrow more money to catch up. This was going to help fix that. Well, they gave all that money to the banks. And now it's even harder to get a loan than it was before they squandered all that $350 billion. So what have we gotten? Well, now, frankly I have had, and I'm still holding out, hope for the Obama administration. They come right in. They say, Bush, before you leave, why don't you go ahead and request that other $350 billion? Because we are going to want to spend that. And then on top of that, we're going to ask for another $800 billion or so. And you know what? We may need $1.2 trillion before it's all over.

Now that is interesting. Of course, as my friends here from Georgia and Texas know, I filed a 2-month tax holiday bill that just says, we don't need the arrogant bureaucrats in Washington to spend our money because we are too stupid to spend it ourselves. What we need is to give the American people the strength of this country, the American people, let them have their own tax dollars for 2 months. If you let them keep every dime of withholding for Federal income tax and every dime for FICA withholding, if you let the American people keep their own money for 2 months, then it comes up to around $334 billion. That would jump-start this economy.

Now, we've been saying that for a couple of months. And here, lo and behold, within the last 10 days, Moody's Economy came out with a study that showed of all the tax proposals--and that included tax proposals that I know my friends here agree with, like cutting capital gains and cutting corporate taxes. I get sick and tired of hearing people say that we will never get manufacturing jobs back in America. Because some of us went and talked to CEOs in China and asked, why did you move over here? I figured they would say because labor is cheap. They said, you know, we had a lot better quality control in the United States with our products. But the corporate tax is less than half here, and they cut us deals on corporate tax.

So we agree. We need to drop the corporate tax and drop capital gains. That will get jobs flooding back in here. But when it comes down to the American money, the thing that will get the economy going the quickest and that will increase the gross domestic product faster in 1 year than any of these tax proposals, it is the tax holiday proposal giving the American people their own money.

Now, it's interesting to me that President Obama is now saying, do you

know what? We may need $1.2 trillion to really get the American economy going. Do you know why that triggered something special in me? It is because, I know, I asked for the numbers, the amount of money that the American individual taxpayers paid per year this last year is right at $1.2 trillion in individual income tax. Wow. Can you imagine? Can you get your mind, Mr. Speaker, around the thought of not paying income tax for a whole year? Can you imagine if the American public were told, do you know what? We had wanted a $1.2 trillion stimulus package to try the best we can to get the economy going. But then it hit us. Do you know the American people are not as stupid as we have characterized them as being? So let's let the American public have that $1.2 trillion for this year. They won't pay any income tax for the whole year. It would be the same thing. No individual income tax or giving Washington $1.2 trillion and let them try to spend their way into helping the American public. Well, the American public is not as stupid as this town has cast them as being. They can figure out good ways to spend the money that they earned and getting this economy going.

Because what are they trying to do? Well, we want to help Detroit. We want to help with jobs. Can you imagine if everybody in America had their own withholding and FICA withholding for a year, the cars that would be bought, the stock that would be bought, the homes that would be bought, the homes that would be built and the businesses that would be built with their own money? They don't need some arrogant bureaucrat in Washington saying, give me $1.2 trillion, and I will try to spend it the right way to get the economy going.

If you let the American people have $1.2 trillion with no individual income tax for a year, this economy would explode. It would be going so good, people would want to rush back into America with these jobs, because this is where it's all happening.

So, I'm still holding out great hope, because one of the things, and Mr. Speaker, I know, I feel sure that President Obama inspires you as he does me, I sat there listening to that inaugural address. And I was inspired. And I know there are critics out there who say, well, I was expecting a better speech from him. I really was. That was a great speech.

The problem that President Obama has is he is so good at speech making, people have come to set the bar so high that he can give a great speech and people are not impressed. Well, I was impressed. Of course he talked about Washington, and that struck a chord with me. When he said: ``With hope and virtue, let us brave the icy currents,'' well, I agree with him. With hope, we have got that. Virtue, well, we just approved a new Treasury Secretary that wasn't virtuous enough to pay his income tax, but apparently we are going to overlook that kind of virtue requirement. Yes, we have some conflict of interest problems with some other appointments. Maybe we will just go forward with hope because we are losing the virtue issue here with some of the recent appointments.

But I am hopeful that this President will understand some of the things that some of the people around President Bush did not, and that is the American people are not as stupid as this town has cast them. They are smart enough to know how to spend their own money, smart enough to get the economy going if we let them have their own money to do it. I am still holding out hope. As the poet says, there is the hope that springs eternal in the human breast. I have got it and I know you guys have it too, Mr. Speaker. We have that hope that springs eternal, but we need to recognize that the arrogance in this town, the arrogance of this capital is much too pervasive and that the hope for this country does not arrive on Air Force One, but we need to take responsibility. We need to let the American public get the economy going with their own money, cut the arrogance and recognize the American people for the backbones of this country that they are. I appreciate the opportunity to vent a little bit from my friend, Dr. Burgess.

The bill is H.R. 143. It is a two-month tax holiday that lets people keep all of their own withholding and all of their FICA for two months. And all it takes is passage and the next paycheck, it is not six months down the road, it is all of their withholding in the check as soon as we pass the bill. That is what H.R. 143 is about. I hope people call the White House and say President Obama, you have inspired me so please, let us have our own money. H.R. 143 is the way to do it and the way that the President can keep his promise.

The gentleman is. The gentleman has been a confidante and adviser and has been here longer than I have. I have greatly appreciated the advice and wisdom of Dr. Burgess.

Dr. Gingrey is a cosponsor and trusted confidante and adviser.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, January 27, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I do oppose the bill, Madam Speaker.

Yes, I do, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I applaud the chairman's efforts to try to rein in some of the actions by the Secretary of the Treasury. I think it's well intentioned. But it directs the Secretary of the Treasury to take action. So does the motion to recommit.

The bill itself attempts to direct the Treasury Secretary to take certain actions and to be more accountable, whereas the motion to recommit directs the Treasury Secretary in a different direction and says he must put the $350 billion back in the Treasury and allow a 2- month tax holiday so the American taxpayer can bail out the economy, not a Treasury Secretary. We've seen enough of that for the last 3 months.

So, Madam Speaker, I understand the chairman's point of order. I believe it's inappropriate. But if there were a vote, even on a vote to table, the American taxpayers understand it's a vote on whether the Treasurer gets to trickle down on them or whether they get to spend the money that they themselves earned and prop up the economy by whom they select.

Madam Speaker, I would appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, we took up the issue of the Troubled Asset Recovery, whatever TARP stands for. $350 billion has been thrown, as one man wished it to be, as he directed.

There's another $350 billion that has been allocated. Now, the question is, who's going to spend it?

Now, I've got a bill that I filed, it was, I think, the first bill laid down over here on the Clerk's desk the minute after we were sworn in, and it's a bill to allow the people that earned the money to spend it. The Treasury Secretary would have to put it in the general revenue and use that to cover any shortfalls from withholding not coming in.

This isn't some rebate where we spend millions to let people know you may get a rebate check, and then millions to process it, and then by and by, pie in the sky, they get a rebate check down the road for $300, $600. This is real money we're talking about, in the account, in the hands of those who earned it as soon as they get their paycheck. If we pass this bill next Thursday that I've proposed, people on their Friday paychecks could have all of their Federal withholding in that check, all of their FICA withholding in that check.

So anybody that's working, performing services, including self- employed, they have a 2-month tax holiday. That money is immediately in their hands, in the economy, not some bureaucrat in Washington who is so arrogant that he thinks you couldn't possibly know where to spend that money to help the economy and help yourself.

So, we've asked, we surveyed people who have e-mailed in and asked, what would you--look at the withholding and see what, tell us what you would use your money for. Number 1 answer? Pay off credit cards, catch up on loans, including the mortgage.

Well, Paulson's out there spending hundreds of billions of dollars to try to loosen up lending so people can refinance and borrow more money to catch up on the mortgage they got behind on in the last year, many, back when gas prices were $4 a gallon. Let them catch up with their own money. They don't need another loan.

Others said they'd go out to eat. They'd stop, they'd use it for entertainment. Others said they'd invest it in their small business to develop it. Others said they'd invest it in the stock markets. That would help the market.

Ten percent of those said they'd use it to buy a new home. That would help them with their down payment. There's so much in the withholding. Others said they'd use it to buy a car. Some said they'd put it in savings. But that would give banks more money to make more loans, so that would be a good thing as well.

Some got very specific. They said they'd buy farm supplies, help with their college education this year. Some said they'd buy insulation for their home to help on the energy bill. One said he'd buy a stove and an oven. Another said he'd use--well, there were many who said they'd repair and remodel their home. Others said they'd pay for medical procedures that they need. How about that? It's not some guy in Washington paying. It's the people that earned the money that would get to spend it.

Another was going to put on a new roof for his home so his family would be dryer and warmer. The people that earned the money know what to do with it.

It is the height of arrogance that in this body, we'd say, no, no, no, Gohmert's got this bill, H.R. 143, that lets the people that earned it have a 2-month tax holiday. We can't do that. We can't let that come to the floor for a vote.

I proposed this amendment yesterday. Got shut out. They didn't want it on the floor. Probably pass. People would be afraid to vote against the people. And that's what that vote is.

But I just submit, Madam Speaker, if this continues, and I keep being shut out on getting this idea from the people for the people by the people, and the votes keep being that we can't bring a bill like that to the floor for a vote, it may be, come November of 2010 that the voters will say, we want to elect somebody that will do what needs doing and not helping their cronies.

Oh, yes, we heard, well, the leadership over here in the House has the idea for this great TARP money. We're going to use it for infrastructure. Oh, yeah. Well, apparently the bill being proposed only has 5 or 6 percent for infrastructure.

You let people have their own money, you let them spend it where they need spending, the money will be in the economy, the economy will increase, and everybody will be better off and the people will have heard from us as they wanted.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow my dear friend from Texas, from Houston, the former judge in Houston. And I appreciate him saying he wants to stand with the homeowners. I don't think when we passed this bailout bill back in September we were standing with the homeowners, because we weren't.

That money got given to banks, all kind of places. We're still trying to find out where all of it went, and we don't know because the bill didn't have enough restrictions. So I appreciate the chairman trying to add restrictions.

But in looking at all of this money, $350 billion still to be spent, with all our efforts to try to pin down the Secretary of the Treasury, try to keep him from giving it to his buddies and hurting his enemies and personal things that may or may not have happened so far in the last 4 months, you really want to stand with the homeowners.

What I've been hearing from people, homeowners who got a little behind on payments, they got behind last summer when gas prices went up, many of them did, and they couldn't pay all the bills.

So instead of having this money routed through the Secretary of the Treasury, as much as we might try to bind his hands, and then on around to maybe through banks and require them to lend, that kind of thing, if we provided a 2-month tax holiday where no withholding is taken out of the workers' check for 2 months, and then you don't take out FICA for 2 months, then it's still more than paid for by the $350 billion. It's a 2-month tax holiday.

Now, President-elect Obama had said he would do exactly what this proposal does, except he'd have a $250,000 cap on income. I have a bill that doesn't propose the $250,000 cap, and it still comes in around $334 billion. That's what will help the homeowners. It's instantaneous. We don't have to put restrictions on it. We don't have to do anything other than let the homeowners have it.

I've had some people tell me they want to get out from under their gas-guzzling car. But last summer when prices went up, the value of their car went down and they can't come out from under it. A 2-month tax holiday will do it.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

You've made some wonderful points, but I come back to the statement you have in quotes there from our President-elect. I have great hope that he will be able to instill more confidence and more calm to help reassure the economy. But the statement ``Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy'' is more of the same. We were promised change, and even though I'm a Republican and he's a Democrat, I was hoping we would get the change and get away from the government's interfering in everything.

We should have done a better job, the Federal Government should have, in monitoring what was being done and spent. But the fact is you go back to the late 1930s, the government just kept getting bigger and bigger. The government kept getting involved more and more. It has continued to expand and grow. And you look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those are governmental creations, and then when they got in trouble in 2002, 2003, fortunately we at that time had a Secretary of the Treasury that was concerned about it and fought here on the Hill to try to get someone to take notice and to start better regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But the government was more interested in continuing to throw money at the issue and not to fix it.

Our job, and we have said this before, is to provide for the common defense and then beyond that create a level, fair playing field, make sure everybody's playing fair, punish the cheaters, and let free enterprise work. And more and more and more we are getting the government in running things.

And now after the bailout of September, it has grown even more. We have got the government buying interest in banks, buying interest in automakers, creating a car czar, for goodness sakes. We can't design a good pen or an ID card for ourselves here all that easily, much less a car. Good grief.

But, anyway, ``Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy.'' Our government is crippling our economy. It did in September. It continues to. It has for many years. The trick is to allow the free enterprise and the entrepreneurship that is so inherent in this society that has made us the greatest Nation, I believe, in the history of the world, and yet that's not change, ``Only government can break the vicious cycles.''

If the gentleman would yield.

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

We do need to have the Federal watchdog groups like the SEC do a better job of monitoring and seeking out the cheaters and the crooks. And that should have happened with Madoff. It should have happened with many things that have been going on. Some of the problems are right within government itself. And so the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, is exactly right. The government will break the vicious cycle by getting out and by becoming more a policeman, going after people that are cheating, instead of trying to dictate everything. It is killing this country to move so quickly towards socialism.

Now, I brought this up in a meeting previously back in September that when the government buys interest in banks, buys interest in stock brokerage firms, car dealers, whatever it is, that's called socialism, and the government becomes a partner and eventually the government takes over the business. That's how socialism works.

I was told by a colleague here obviously these things are not socialism because the socialists are not in favor of the September bailout bill.

Well, after it passed, I saw one of the socialist leaders on television saying,

yes, you know, initially we weren't for the bailout because we didn't think money should be paid to Wall Street and all these other groups, but now that it's past, we realize the government's taking over the financial sector, the insurance company, all these things are great. It's the greatest day for socialism in American history.

So it was socialism. It is socialism. I have used the example before, but I learned a great lesson on exactly why socialism never works. Not only did it not work for the New Testament church, and eventually Apostle Paul had to issue an order that if you don't work, you don't eat, it didn't work for the Pilgrims. They had too many people starve to death the first year; so they went to private property and it flourished.

But the summer I spent as an exchange student in the Soviet Union allowed a trip out to a collective farm, and the fields looked bad. And I have worked on lots of farms and ranches, and normally you get your work done early, early, before the sun gets to its peak. And all the farmers were sitting in the shade, and it was obvious they hadn't worked so far as midmorning.

And so I spoke a little Russian back then, and I said, you know, trying to be as nice as I could, when do you work out in the field? They laughed. One of them said, I make the same number of rubles if I am out there in the field or if I am here in the shade, so I am here in the shade.

Many people don't understand why socialism isn't a good idea. It always fails. The only way the Soviet Union made it last for 70 years, they had to have a tyrannical government that killed people or put people in prison if they didn't abide by it or work.

Our government, country, had flourished because the government was the policeman and not the dictator. That's what we have got to get back to.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate my friend for yielding.

This is a good overall idea. It's a good bill in general. There needs to be more clarity. Many of us have wondered who is building these Presidential libraries, and this will help inform the public just who it is that's doing that.

The concern I have is that there is a provision in the bill for filing errors or omissions that could send somebody to prison for 5 years. Now as a former judge, I've presided over thousands and thousands of felony cases. I have sent I don't know how many people to prison. That's not a concern. My reputation was, as one criminal was overheard telling another, ``He will give a fair trial, but if you're guilty, you don't want his court.''

I don't have a problem sending people to prison, but one thing, probably the best conservative organization as far as getting out the message, the Heritage Foundation, and the ACLU have actually been in agreement on, this body, almost on whims, throws in a prison sentence as an added provision, and we are having people go to prison who shouldn't. If it is a dollar issue, then fine them 1 million, 10 million, whatever would be appropriate. But we should not, in this body, continually subject people to being taken down in their home, handcuffed when they made an error that should not be criminalized.

So that is the concern I have. This never went through Judiciary. It has been through prior Congresses. It never went through Judiciary, the Crime Subcommittee, to look at that specific aspect. That is a concern, and it is something that we should not be doing, overcriminalizing provisions, by just sticking that in as an exclamation point. It needs to be well thought through before we provide a way to send somebody to prison.

I appreciate the time. I hope that could be taken out because that is an aspect that's inappropriate.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here as we start another 2 years in a new Congress, the 111th Congress. It is an humbling honor to get to follow in the footsteps of so many giants.

I come today to talk a bit about the economy and what's been done so far and what is being proposed to be done in the future. Now, there is so much to be learned from people who have been around this place and been on this Earth for many, many decades. A fellow down in Nacogdoches had the wisdom, when he was told by a young reporter on his 95th birthday, ``Congratulations on your 95th birthday, I hope you're not offended, but I hope I never turn 95,'' and the gentleman said, ``Well, son, that's because you're not 94.'' But a man over 90 approached me there and said that he was sick and tired of hearing people say, oh, this is the worst day since the Depression, some people saying it's as bad as the 1930s Depression. And he said, let me tell you about the Depression. I was there. Sometimes we went for 2 days without eating. And I look around nowadays and I see people offended if they don't have three cars in their family. They've got a computer, they've got cell phones, they've got all these things, and they're trying to tell me that this is as bad as the Depression

when my family couldn't eat, when unemployment, by some estimations, at times was going toward 50 percent, but by most agreement was more like 25 percent or so. It was an incredibly rough time for America, but they managed to get through it.

There is interesting literature out now that says, by government intervention all through the thirties, the economy never got better until after World War II started; that all the government intervention may have actually prolonged the terrible Depression rather than helping. Here in this day and time we have people with the best of intentions, they want, truly, to make it better. There are others that we have here in Washington, part of the government that perhaps want to reward their friends. And that is not a partisan comment, that apparently is a bipartisan comment because we've seen it on both sides of the party issue.

But to be told repeatedly that this is a terrible depression, worst economy since the thirties, I was around in the late 1970s, I was around in 1980 and 1981. And so I gathered some numbers about those days. We had a 1973 oil crisis and a 1979 energy crisis. And we had, let's see, unemployment at 5.1 in January of 1974. And it rose, let's see, mild recession from January to July. But unemployment got to 7.5 and eventually got over 10 percent. And I recall thinking, when this guy Reagan started talking about--and I was in the Army at the time at Fort Benning, Georgia--and I heard him, and he was just such a gifted communicator, and he communicated confidence and a good feeling about this country. And it helped make America stronger when America felt stronger. There is so much to the mental status of the people of this country. But by 1979, inflation had reached 11.3 percent. In 1980, it soared to 13.5 percent. And here we had a guy, Reagan, who was saying in 1980 that as President he could bring down double-digit inflation, he could bring down double-digit unemployment, he could bring down double-digit interest rates.

I recall my wife and I bought our first house out near Fort Benning, Georgia. And my dad was concerned with the high interest rate being over 10 percent. And he said, you know, son, it just doesn't get any higher than that, why don't you wait until it comes down. And yet at the time we were selling our house after my 4 years at Fort Benning, there were people wanting desperately to absorb 12 percent loans because the interest rates had gotten so high. In fact, I've got some data gathered on that.

The Federal funds rate was about 11 percent in '79; it rose to 20 percent by June of 1981. The prime interest rate eventually reached 21.5 percent in June of 1982. And here was this candidate in 1980 named Reagan saying ``I can help bring these things down.'' And I remember telling my wife at the time, ``I like this guy.'' As a member of the Army, I could not criticize a Commander in Chief because he was in the chain of command and that's a court-martialable offense. So you couldn't say anything critical about the Commander in Chief. But I was excited about this guy Reagan.

But I said to my wife, let's face it, there is no way one man, even the President of the United States, could bring down double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, and double-digit interest rates. I mean one man just can't do that. And these things started peaking through the late 1970s, 1980, 1981, and 1982; and lo and behold, he was able to turn things around. We had a massive tax cut, and the economy turned around and started going the other way. And lo and behold, double-digit interest rates fell below 10 percent, unemployment rates fell below 10 percent. Interest rates, inflation, all of those things came down, and I was wrong. Apparently one man could make that much difference.

Now, some of the folks know here, Madam Speaker, I like President George W. Bush. I think he is a good man, an honorable man, despite what some folks say. I like him. He's smarter than people give him credit, but as Jeff Foxworthy says, often when people who are not from the South hear a southern accent, they immediately deduct 50 IQ points from what they think the IQ of the speaker is. But when our Secretary of the Treasury convinced him to say, as the Treasury Secretary said, that we're about to have this terrible depression and we could have a stock crash like '29; in some of the private meetings, it could be that once the first bank fails, they'll all fail. We'll have a worse depression than the 1930s. We'll have all these terrible things. Those kinds of things when said from the highest people in the country can become self-fulfilling prophesies. You need to have Presidents that will come forward and say ``The only real thing we have to fear is fear itself,'' as Roosevelt did. You need to spread calm and confidence. And there are obviously many issues on which I disagree with President- elect Obama, but one of the things we see about this man, as he prepares to take over the Presidency, he has a real gift for spreading confidence, spreading calm, and spreading hope, as he likes to say.

Now, we've been hearing a lot lately people trying to set the bar so low that anything he does will pass the bar, but the fact is we need all of our national leaders to be spreading confidence. You don't do that by saying, ``Oh, we're in this terrible depression,'' because we are not. When you actually look at the numbers, we are in so much better shape as a Nation than we were in 1980. We don't have hostages being held in Iran and looking just so helpless to the rest of the country. President Bush has certainly made clear, and I think by some of President-elect Obama's appointments he has made clear to the rest of the world, you don't attack us or we will respond. And so I hope that will continue. It's an important message. But we should not claim that things are worse than they are because that becomes self- fulfilling.

Though I have to say, by scaring Congress enough, there were about 60 Republicans and about three times that many Democrats who voted for the bailout bill mainly because the Secretary of the Treasury scared them enough into doing so. That's not a basis for making good judgments to help direct this ship of state.

Now, there's another $350 billion of the original $700 billion in TARP funds that were in that bailout bill. All that is required--and I know there are some who say, oh, no, in Congress we will get to have an up-or-down vote. The bill doesn't say that. The bill says all the Treasury Secretary has to do is file a plan. I mean, goodness, his plan could just say ``I want to spend $350 billion and send it all to my friends,'' and under the law if there is no vote disapproving within 15 days, he can take the money and spend it.

We have already seen $350 billion squandered. Now, I know that Secretary Paulson had his department issue a report last week that says we have studied what we did and we think we did--no, they don't say ``we think.'' They said, we did a great thing. We saved the economy.

Well, one of the things they were doing was spending hundreds of billions of dollars, we were told, to get more credit, to loosen up the credit. I have been sent copies of letters from banks that received billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money and the letters say we're not going to be able to make car loans anymore, we're not going to floor plan dealers anymore.

Now, one of the things Congress has done that's been a problem is to force lenders to lend money to people who could not afford to pay it back. So I'm not in favor of doing that. I don't want to force lenders into making bad loans. But when billions and billions of American taxpayer dollars are extended to these huge banks, and at the same time I've seen press releases from those banks that say, oh, this will really help us to extend more credit, lend more money. This will help with the credit crunch, and then follow it up shortly thereafter by saying, we're not going to lend like we used to and we're holding money in reserve. It had absolutely the opposite effect of what it was supposed to have. So that causes great concern. It has not opened up lending. And the fact is this Congress could allocate $2 trillion to Detroit auto makers, but if people cannot buy cars from the dealers and the dealers have all the banks pulling back floor plans saying, we're not going to help you get cars in to sell to other buyers, then it will be wasted money. You've got to have people able to buy cars or any money given to Detroit is absolutely wasted.

There was some criticism of Secretary Paulson, and I was one of those

who was appropriately critical, for not having more restrictions on the money that was given away. Some of it went to bonuses. Instead of extending more credit, some banks actually bought up competition, which means there will be less credit extended because there are fewer lenders out there to extend that money in the way of credit. So it had the exact opposite effect it was supposed to. And with all due deference to the Secretary of the Treasury patting himself and his department on the back for doing such a great and noble job, I just don't see it in what we've had happen here.

I've been joined by one of my colleagues from Georgia, a man I have the utmost respect for. He is someone in whom I have the greatest of confidence and admiration, and I know that when I have an idea, I'm better off running it by him before I float it out publicly. And so I would like to yield to my friend Lynn Westmoreland from Georgia.

Thank you, Mr. Westmoreland, for participating. You have made some great points.

You know I have talked to a number of builders there in east Texas, where I represent, back in September. I know things were tough in a lot of places in the country back in September, but the contractors were telling me they are doing okay, you know, it's just not fantastic, but they are doing okay.

As soon as we started hearing all the gloom and doom, I started to hear people say, you know, we were going to buy a house, we were going to build a house, we were going to buy a car. But since we are told we may be headed for depression, we are going to hold up and wait and see, you know, maybe sometime next year. We don't want to be buying a new house, or building a new house, or building a new building for our business if we are about to hit a depression.

So what happens? People quit buying cars, they quit building. Contractors say, you know, we always love when the phone rings, that means it may be somebody that's about to build another building. But, lately, they cringe every time the phone rings, because it means someone else may be calling to say we had talked to you, we were planning on building something the first of the year, but let's hold up and wait and see if this depression really is coming.

Let me tell you a little more about the 1980s when people say, oh, this is the worst since the 1930s. Actually, in 1980, there were approximately 4,590 State and federally chartered savings and loans institutions with total assets of over $616 billion. Let's see, between 1980 and 1983, 118 S&Ls with 43 billion in assets failed.

Things were going badly in this country. Banks, S&Ls failing, S&L crisis, all kinds of things that had been built up, ready to start happening during the 1970s and in the early 1980s that began happening. Were it not for the foresight to have tax cuts, stimulate the economy, then things never would have turned around, but Ronald Reagan did a good job of doing that.

Now, as my friend, Mr. Westmoreland, read the quote, the Fed is printing money. They are printing money like crazy. There are consequences to doing that, for those of us that really believe so many solutions can be found in history, because you can go back historically.

As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. There is new technology, but there are not new issues. These things have all been tried and failed, succeeded. So you go back and you say, okay, this is what was done this year, that failed. This was done here, that succeeded. Let's go over the things that succeeded.

And we have seen over and over that if you want to create inflation, as we saw in the late 1970s and the very early 1980s, just print money like the Fed is doing now. We are very fortunate that we haven't hit a huge inflation rate in the last 2 months. And why would that be? Well, back last summer, we were paying $4 a gallon for gasoline and now many of us are paying $1.40, that kind of thing, for gasoline.

We are very fortunate that the price of energy failed at a time when we were printing money like crazy. But we cannot keep doing that. To print $1.2 trillion over the next 2 years will devastate this country with inflation. We are talking about the 1920s. For those of you who remember your history, going back after World War I, Germany was in very, very difficult circumstances. Their economy was a real problem. They had elected officials, they were trying to turn things around.

They thought they could print money and print their way out of their economic troubles. And some people remember the illustration of people carrying wheelbarrows of money to the supermarket--wasn't supermarkets back then--but to the market just to buy essentials and food.

That's where this leads, when you just keep unabatedly printing money, like is being done now, the inflation will come. It will devastate this country. It is silly to be doing that when we know from history what happens.

If you really want to get scared, look what happened in Germany in the 1920s and going into the 1930s. The economy got so desperate because of all this inflation, they ended up electing a little guy with a funny mustache that was such a bigot and such a mean-spirited man, he devastated the planet.

Israel is having difficulty now, having rockets fired on them each day from the Gaza Strip from Hamas. During that little man with the mustache's regime, over 6 million Jewish people were slaughtered. Why? Because good people in Germany got desperate because of inflation, and they elected a man who was going to help with their economy, not realizing just how mentally unbalanced the man was, and millions and millions and millions, the entire world, suffered as a result.

This Nation has been the defender of freedom around the world. This Nation has been the most solid economy around the world. The world depends on us to make good judgment in this body. And when we fail, it's not just those of us in this body that suffers, it's the Nation, it's the world that suffers.

It is so touching, and the older I get, the more I turn into my late mother, who just got teary-eyed and emotional about all kinds of things, it was deeply touching to see all the children, Madam Speaker, gathered up here around the Speaker's rostrum yesterday as we were sworn in, cute children, all races, both genders, just really neat, great, wholesome, bipartisan, Democratic kids, Republican Members' kids. But the thought that went through my mind is, if we don't change our ways, these are the sweet little children that as adults will pay, literally pay, for what we are doing.

We are running debt up on those little kids that they should never have to pay. For us to live now, that is so wrong. We need to be helping our children, not saddling them with more debt, and that's what an overzealous stimulus package will do.

That's why yesterday the first bill that was laid down on the desk over here to be filed was a 2-month tax holiday bill. I filed it in December, and I filed it again yesterday with this Congress.

It takes the 350 billion still remaining of the bailout bill, and section 4, it's not a long bill, it just has 5 pages, section 4, ``Immediate Termination of TARP Purchase Authority.'' That is an important principle. It is time to end the authority that we gave to one person, the Secretary of the Treasury, with all of this unfettered ability to just squander money.

I mean, the main restriction in there was he couldn't bail out central banks of foreign governments. But, basically, you read through the bill--and I am afraid there weren't enough people that did--and it just goes on and on as the Secretary determines.

I tried to point out to people, we have never, since we had a Constitution, given that kind of authority to one man. We should never give that kind of authority to one man. It was a mistake. You don't give unrestricted authority like that to just go out and squander money.

No matter which party is in power, it doesn't matter in this country, the principles that made us great, the principles that caused the signers of the Declaration of Independence to pledge their lives and their fortunes and cause many of them to lose and give up their lives, their families' lives, their complete fortunes, was the principle that government does not need to have this kind of unrestricted authority. And yet the market dropped 777 points, and all of a sudden people who knew our history, knew the principles on which this Nation was founded, were all of a sudden ready to come rushing in here and give one man that kind of authority.

George Washington, before the Constitution, December 27, 1776, was given

that kind of authority. He didn't ask for it. He hardly used any of it. He used his leadership to persuade the soldiers to reenlist. That's why the bill was passed December 27, 1776.

The Continental Congress knew if these guys don't reenlist in January, we are all dead, and so will our families be dead. So that's why they passed the bill giving Washington this unfettered authority to spend money. He used his leadership to persuade them to reenlist, even in that terrible winter. That's leadership.

But as Washington said, a people unused to restraint must be led, they will not be driven. And too often in Congress we try to drive people instead of leading people. So that's one part of my 2-month tax holiday bill. It ends the authority.

Now, Madam Speaker, people need to understand that in this bill, the bailout bill that was passed in September, there was $700 billion appropriated. To give another $350 billion, all he has to do is file a plan, and we don't vote for 15 days.

My bill is funded by bringing that $350 billion back into the Treasury. So, what did we learn historically from the tax cuts that President John F. Kennedy did, President Ronald Reagan did, and in 2003 President George W. Bush did? We will just overlook the last 4 months where we forgot our principles here in this administration. But you go back to those tax cuts, the economy was stimulated. And each time the revenue into the Federal Treasury did not decrease. It increased dramatically, because the economy went strong.

So there are two ways to raise revenue in this country. One is raising taxes, and then you have an immediate increase in tax dollars coming into the Treasury, but the long-term effect repeatedly we have seen it is to kill the economy. Or you can lower taxes and immediately stimulate the economy, and then as a result of the economy being stimulated, then more tax dollars than ever come in than even when you raise taxes.

So it is all what you want to happen long-term for the sake of our children and those to follow us, and that is why this bill says instead of the Treasury Secretary squandering, it doesn't use that term, of course, but that is what has happened, squandering $350 billion, it allows the people who earned the money to keep it for two months. So, that is about $101 billion a month that individuals pay into the U.S. Treasury in individual income tax.

Now, we really need long-term tax reform. We need to drop the capital gains rate, like Ireland did, to 12 percent, which has really helped their economy. I think their corporate tax rate is 11 percent, so businesses are flooding into Ireland.

I am sick and tired too of hearing people say we will never get manufacturing jobs back into America. That is hogwash. Look around the world. Some of us went to China. What was the number one reason industry was moving to China, they told us, why they moved their industry? Yes, they said labor is cheaper, but we have better quality control back in the U.S. Our workers produce better products back in the U.S. But the corporate tax rate is less than half of what it is here. Lower the corporate tax rate. You will see manufacturing jobs flood back into the United States. That is what it is all about.

Some of them said, you know, they cut us a deal on corporate tax rates in China so we were able to build a brand new facility with state-of-the-art equipment and it basically was paid for very quickly out of money we didn't pay in corporate taxes, and now we are competitive again because our aging factories in the U.S. were costing us, and now we are state-of-the-art. All you have to do is lower the tax rate. Jobs will instantly appear.

Go after our own energy in this country. We know the energy rates are going to come up, and we need to do something about it now to produce our own energy so that we are doing that and this inflation cycle doesn't kill us.

Going back to my 2-month tax holiday bill, it says as far as the tax cut part, in the case of wages received for services performed during the period beginning in the first full month after the passage of this bill, the percentage of tax will be zero.

Now, I heard from some self-employed people who said, well, it is not going to help me being self-employed. I work just as hard or harder than anyone else, and yet I am not included. Yet that is not accurate. That is included. It says clearly in the case of self-employment income for service performed during the 2-month period, the percentage of tax will be zero. So there will be no withholding during the 2-month period for income tax, there will be no withholding for FICA.

I have gotten good suggestions. Newt Gingrich has been extremely helpful in suggestions and spreading the word, as Jed Babbin and Neal Boortz and Steve Morton, so many, many great thinkers have been helpful.

But President-elect Obama promised that if you make less than $250,000, you will get a tax cut. Some of us have been concerned when we give tax cuts to people that don't pay taxes that that is not a tax cut, that is welfare. Under this bill, the tax cuts go to people that pay taxes.

There are, we know, people who do not pay income tax. They don't make enough. They work hard, they earn a wage, but it is not enough to get to the level of paying income tax. They still have FICA withheld from their check. Under this bill, no FICA will be withheld from their bill, and because the employee has no FICA taken out, then the employer who is struggling to make sure they keep people employed gets a 2-month holiday on paying FICA as well.

Some have said, well, this will hurt people on Social Security. No, it won't, because it specifically says that, and this is in section 3, funding of Social Security trust funds is with repealed TARP funds. It is covered. The $350 billion doesn't get to be doled out for bonuses for the Nation's wealthy who have mismanaged their banks or their firms and then reward themselves with bonuses. It doesn't go there. It goes to the people who have earned it. So everyone who is working will get a tax break.

Some have said, well, I would appreciate having the withholding not taken out for 2 months, that will really help me for those 2 months, but it will hurt me at the end of the year when I have to pay that. They miss the point. There is no Federal tax for 2 months under this bill. Everybody gets a tax cut. So actually what this very short, very efficient bill does is exactly what President-elect Obama promised would be done, with the exception it doesn't have a $250,000 cap on it.

Now, there are those I know who are doing well and are able to live off the dividend income and the interest income, and that is harder, of course, after the stock market went down. And God bless those folks. I am thrilled to death that you are in a position where you can live off of dividend and interest income. I would like to see across-the-board complete tax reform. But under this bill, this does not give tax breaks for unearned income like interest and dividend. This is only for wages earned during this time.

So if you are a hardworking American, you are going to get a tax cut under this bill. It does exactly what President-elect Obama promised. For anyone who pays any FICA, income tax, for 2 months you get that tax break.

Now, it is so ironic that the bailout bill was partly under the guise that we are going to give all these billions or hundreds of billions to banks so they can increase credit, make more loans, so people can refinance their loans and finance into the new refinance money what they are behind on so they don't lose their homes.

Well, I have talked to people who say if they could have their withholding from their check in their check for 2 months, they can catch up. A lot of people fell behind last summer when gas prices were $4 a gallon. They get their withholding for a couple of months. I have seen figures that estimated if your family income, household income is in the $60,000 range, you could get $2,000 or $3,000 over that 2-month period. So they could catch up on the mortgage and you wouldn't have to borrow more money to catch up on your mortgage. You could catch up.

I have had some people tell me, I want to get out from under this gas-guzzling car I have got, but when energy prices went up, the value of any car went so far down, now I owe more on my car than it is worth, so I can't

trade it in, because I don't have a down payment for another car. I would be without a car, so I have to keep paying on this gas-guzzler. I would like to get a more efficient car.

This would allow those people to buy a new car, a more efficient car. It is good for everybody.

But we come back to what I said earlier: If people cannot buy cars, then it doesn't matter how many trillions of dollars we give to the auto makers, they are going to still ultimately go out of business. And the trouble with bailouts is once you start giving money to anybody, whether it is a bank, an insurance company, whoever, once you start that process, you will always be able to find someone more deserving of a bailout than those who have already gotten money, and there becomes no good place to stop.

Well, when you love someone and you see that they are getting addicted to some substance, and as a judge I saw it, you see them getting addicted to something, then it is time to have an interdiction and say I love you too much to allow you to continue this addiction. We are not going to let you have any more of that.

Now, I was upset when we were talking about an auto bailout, because I knew the auto makers had been withholding hold-back money, rebate money, that they contractually owed dealers. They were putting dealers in a bind just because they weren't abiding by their own contracts. As I understand it, they have begun to catch up on that, and that is appropriate.

But to see then letters from major banks who have gotten billions of tax dollars who are now saying we are not going to be lending money for cars, we are not going to be lending money to dealers anymore, even though they are wonderful dealers, they have a good business, it looks like they will stay in business for good, we are just not going to lend anymore, that is such an abuse and 180 degrees from what was promised.

Now, some would say we should not get the Federal Government into the business of telling lenders what to do with their money, and I am one of those. However, the danger that every bank should have been told by their attorneys is, keep in mind if you take Federal money, the Federal Government is going to have their hand in your business and they are going to tell you how to run it, because they are a partner with you. And I happen to believe if we are going to put Federal money in something, we should have restrictions and tell people like a bank that this is what you can and can't do. Secretary Paulson did not do that.

But my preference is don't give away any more bailout money. Let's let the people that earned it keep it and let them decide who deserves to be bailed out and who deserves to have their products purchased. That is how a free market works.

When you look back, you see that an open government is a good thing, a free market is a good thing. To my way of thinking, being such a student of history, it looks like from our founding documents the most important job that we have as a Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. Then, beyond that, this Federal Government should create a level playing field, punish cheaters, make sure everybody plays fairly, and then let them play. That is what we need to be doing, and we have gone so far in excess of that.

This government, when I heard that we were going to encourage a car czar, I couldn't believe it. I mean, we can't even do a good job of designing our own I.D. card. Can you imagine what we would do with cars? Good grief. We should not be in that business.

So I would encourage people, Mr. Speaker, who believe that they would do a better job of spending their own money, to contact their Representative, contact their Senator, call the Capitol Hill operator and they can be connected to their Representative, their Senators, and that would go a long way toward getting this bill to the floor and getting it passed. Because it is not an issue of if the money will be spent, it is an issue of will the Treasury Secretary squander it on your behalf, or will you be able to use your own money to help get this economy turned around.

Mr. Speaker, this reminds me that this begging for money for a bailout is a fix. I saw it a lot in drug dealers and in drug addicts who would come before my court for sentencing. It was the same story. They would come in. They would have that first little rush from that first fix, and then they would have to have more and more and more. If you really love them and you care about them deeply and want them to reach their God-given potential, you cut them off and say, ``I love you too much to start you down this road.''

In this case, bankruptcy is the place to go. That's why it's designed by Congress. Let's get this fixed so that it will be good for all Americans.

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

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.

So, basically, getting a two-twelfth or 16\2/3\ 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 wage-earning 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

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.

Certainly.

It absolutely did, no question.

You remember correctly, yes, sir.

It certainly did.

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.

Absolutely.

It would be H.R. 7309.

That's correct.

That's correct.

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.

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

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.

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

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.