haven't noticed a lot of jobs being created in nine years. mr. grayson: they tell us it will boost the economy irk haven't noticed that happening for nine years either. you have to wonder why they persist in this mania, this obsession of theirs that they need to have tax cuts for the rich when the economy is flat on its back an unemployment is almost 10%. i think i have the answer. they want tax cuts for the rich because they want a tax cut for themselves. what do i mean by that? let's look at the people who are really in charge, the ones who actually run the republican party. let's start with this gentleman here. the man with the cigar, rush limbaugh. doesn't he look happy? according to news week, he -- according to "newsweek," he makes $5 .7 million a year, and extending the tax cuts means

he'll have another $2.7 million. mega dittos, rush, and mega money. let's look at the next one. glenn beck, according to "newsweek," glenn beck makes $33 million a year as a pundit and extending the bush tax cuts means a cool $1.5 million for glenn beck's ongoing zeile from network. let's look at the next one. sean happy -- hannity. "newsweek" says he makes $22 million a year from his act on fox. that means the bush tax cuts mean an extra $1 million. $1 million for sean hannity. maybe he can afford some anger management classes. let's take a look at the next one.

bill o'reilly. he makes a modest $20 million a year from his gig on fox. that means that the bush tax cuts give him not quite seven figures, nearly $914,000 of extra cash. it's easy to see why he wants to see the bush tax cuts extended. i have to say, he's no pinhead when it comes to that. now, sarah palin. sarah palin has made $14 million this year from cashing in on her fame. in fact, she's done a better job of turning fame into cash than anyone in american history. $14 million. so she wants the bush tax cuts extended so she can make an extra cool $638,000. as she was -- as she would gesture.

and now on to newt gingrich, the man who did such a great job of running america in the 1990's, he wants a second chance in this decade. newt if you do to us now what you did to us then, we'll be in trouble. but he makes $5 million a year from his punditry, he'll get an extra quarter million dollars a year. an extra quarter million dollars a year from the bush tax cuts being extended. now let's go on to the big cheese. george w. bush himself. the man who got us into two endless war the man who brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy. the man who gave us $4 a gallon gasoline. george w. bush makes a cull $4.2 million a year, according to "newsweek." that means that extending the bush tax cuts for george bush means an extra $187,000 in his

pockets every single year. i have a better idea. instead of placating these people and letting them spew out onto the airwaves their lies about the bush tax cut ever revealing the fact that they stand to gain millions, millions of dollars each year from their selfish desire to take advantage of the rest of america, let's do this. let's take that money and create jobs. all that money that the bush tax cuts are charging us that can create jobs for three million americans a year. $30,000 job a fair wage for fair work, a dig fied wage for dig fied work and a way to -- a dignified wage for dignified work and a way to help our economy, a better idea than putting money in the pocks of the rich. the problem is not that the poor have too much money, that's not the problem at all, it's that

they need jobs. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: mr. garrett from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. burton of indiana. mr. defazio. mr. moran from kansas. merchandise woolsey from california. -- ms. woolsey from california. mr. diaz-balart from florida. mr. grayson. ms. ros-lehtinen. mr. franks of arizona. under think speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the

gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. it's been an interesting day here on the floor. as always, it's an honor to have a chance to speak here. what we have just witnessed was not a pleasant event. it's terribly sad. tragic when anybody in congress, especially a leader, a chairman, is found to have engaged in conduct inappropriate to such a degree as a member of congress, particularly as the chairman of the tax code writing committee.

we've heard some things that were a little bit surprising. i heard chairman rangel say there was no self-enrichment. i heard people talk about the lack of precedent for something like this to have such a horrible sentence as to have to stand before the speaker and be told to pay the taxes that were actually due and owing. that should have been paid previously when they were due and owing. and how horrible that was. so a little surprising that i would hear a fellow colleague say, make a comparison to the death penalty and life in prison. i've had the unenjoyable

response to believe the sentence people to death before and to life in prison. and i would dare say you could bring back those sentenced to life, you couldn't bring back those sentenced to death once it's been carried out, but they would not agree that standing before the speaker and being told to pay the taxes you didn't pay back when you should have was anything equivalent and fair to be compared with the life sentence in prison. with regard to precedent, all kinds of precedents come back to mind. all types of displays of integrity. we heard people say across the aisle that because someone conducting themselves in such a heroic and noble fashion in war, that they deserve to be left

alone and to be honored and in fact apparently deserving of a standing ovation for failing to comply with the laws that himself helped create. precedent? you want to know precedent? in this country? you can go down the hall from this chamber and go to the rotunda and look around and see massive paintings that evidence precedent. you see 56 signers of the declaration of independence who pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor and they didn't withhold any of those.

we are reminded of, i believe it was thomas nelson, a signer of the declaration, that placed his life, his fortune, his sacred honor, i believe it was nelson who during the siege at -- of yorktown had indicated that since the british officers were in his home, his home should be fired upon. that that was the british headquarters. the soldiers apparently responded that, sir, this is your home. he said, this is where the enemy is. take out my home. precedent? people who pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, who lost family members,

who lost everything, all for the sake of us having liberty and freedom someday and say that we've not -- it's ok to just flagrantly fail to abide by the laws that we ourselves create. precedent? there's the big mural of washington standing there with a piece of paper in his hands and people file by that by the thousands every day and don't really understand the precedent that that established, precedent, i'll tell you precedent. george washington was made commander of the revolutionary military. many of the soldiers enlisted around the time of the signing

of the declaration of independence, july, 1776, which means their enlistment was to the -- was to be completed in january of 1777. most of that time was spent in retreat in front of vastly superior british forces. december 24, things were so desperate, washington talked to his generals and he believed they should move across the delaware, even with all the ice, even with so many of his men not equipped, many without shoes, they should travel across the delaware and engage the most feared mercenaries in the world, his generals said, there's ice in the river. we could lose the entire revolution if we do this. washington said, if we don't have a victory, it's going to be lost anyway.

he himself came up with the challenge words. if a soldier was to be challenged that night, halt, who goes there the challenge words that would allow the challenger to know that this was an american would be victory or death. it was that important. they traveled across the icy delaware, george washington knew better than to stand up in a boat, especially in an icy river. they caught the hessians offguards, routed them, took them prisoner, some were killed, it was a major victory. but many of they have american soldiers felt like they were not going to re-enlist. when their time was up. on december 27, 1776, the continental congress did the unthinkable.

they were seeking a democratic republic where people would govern themselves, yet they passed a law to give washington basically all the power, all the financial power he needed to win the war do, whatever you need, pay whatever you've got to pay, because the continental congress knew if these guys didn't re-enlist they were all dead. their families would be dead. they would be dead, everything would be gone. everything they'd worked for in their lives would be gone. but they had fledged their lives, their fortunes and honor and put it in the hands of one man and set sent a copy of the bill to washington explaining we are giving you all this power because we know you and we know your absolute integrity. but when you have no further need of this power, you'll give it back.

precedent. that was a precedent. no man has ever been given that kind of power than the united states -- in the united states history. often came close with his wall street buddy bailout that he was able to rangle, but they knew washington, that was a precedent. he didn't get a copy of the bill in the letter until the men had to re-enlist or go home. washington urged them to re-enlist and no one did. he made a second plea, not knowing he had the power to raise their salary and his plea was so heartfelt because they knew this man's heart. and he later found out the power he had. precedent. the precedent came when george

washington won the revolution and did what no man before or is since has ever done. he did what's depicted in that picture where he is standing there with his resignation in his hand and he says here's all the power back. i did what you asked with absolute integrity and now i'm going home. that's a resident. that is incredible humility and credibility that we haven't seen here in a long time. that's a precedent. talk of precedent during chairman range will's hearing, compared to those kinds of precedents. when george washington resigned, he sent a resignation letter to the 13 governors.

and at the end of that resignation letter and it was circulated throughout the 13 states, he ended with these words, what a precedent this is. i now make it my earnest prayer that god would have you in the state over which you preside in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate the spirit, the subordination of governance, to obtain a brotherly affection and love for one another for their fellow citizens of the united states, and particularly for their brothers who have served in the field. and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and specific temper of mind which

were the characterics of the divine author of our blessed religion and without a humble invitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. he signed it. i have the honor to be with great respect and esteem, most obedient and very hupble servant, george -- humble servant, george washington. there is integrity, there is humility, you would have never heard washington stand up and say, hey, at least i didn't self-enrich. there was no self-enrichment, even though washington in his case, it was true.

precedent, we're told. we're told about precedent here when you have this historic building where so many acts of selflessness has been carried out. webster probably s.u.v. president. i'm not sure he was right in what he did. i think he was wrong when he urged other senators to join in the compromise of 1850. but apparently webster believed, even though he was a strict and litigationist and believed that no one should be enslaved or owned by another individual. precedent, well, i'm taken

aback. in thr hallowed hall, no self-enrichment. webster stood up knowing that if he urged the other senators to join in a compromise of 1850, though he probably would be president if he said that, he would not be. he tried after he urged them. he figured it wouldn't, that was self-help. there was a case where there was no self enrichment. he never became president and historians point to that act. right or wrong, he believed

there would be a civil war if they did not have the compromise of 1850. he believed in 1850, the nation would not be able to withstand a civil war. maybe it wouldn't have. it almost didn't when it began in 1861. but that was a precedent. that was self-lesson. that was a case of no self-enrichment or how about in the impeachment of andrew johnson. the man is carried on a stretcher so he can cast a vote and the vote failed by one. there are all kinds of cases of precedents of cases in which there were cases of no self-enrichment and yet that is

brought up in this case of chairman range will. i like chairman range will. he is a fun guy to talk to, fun guy to be around until this episode. i thought he was a very, very smart individual. but for his statements to be true that he had no idea -- no idea he was doing anything wrong, then there would have to be vast amounts of ignorance. there isn't a law against ignorance. but after i heard the comment, no self-enrichment, i asked for the case evidence. well, it turns out in the dominican republic, the

respondent, chairman range will, purchased a villa -- rang will, purchased a villa -- rangel purchased a villa. he had quarterly payments due and could use it up to nine weeks per year. the remaining weeks, it could be rented out by the resort with proceeds going into the rental pool, from which he received benefit or some might say self-enrichment, because for his portion of the rental pool, it's income. obviously, we can't call people a liar, so, ok, he was telling the truth. he had no idea that when he was provided money or that that money was paid toward a home

which he purchased to pay off his mortgage, he had no idea that that was income. now i would think to help make that kind of assertion, it would help if the chairman of ways and means also came in this body and in addition to saying, there's no self-enrichment, i had no idea at the time i was making these mistakes, woy think he would add, you know what, let -- since i'm chairman of ways and means and i can't figure this stuff out and even i am completely ignorant of what is accrued income to me, what we need to do is et they are have a flat tax or i don't have fill out another document again. it's just taken care of. there are no mistakes, because this is so confusing because even the chairman of ways and means cannot figure it out.

well, the evidence goes on that in late 1992 or early 1993, the management of punta cana didn't have the remaining mortgages with some early investors and in 2009, by that year, the rental pool earnings paid off his original mortgage and the financing of the third bedroom addition. see, most people would realize that if other people are paying money to rent out your villa and you're getting checks as apparently came at some point directly from the rental pool to chairman rang will -- rangel,

they would say i'm having extra money in my pocket, that's income. when people are renting your villa and that money is going into a pool from which your mortgage is being paid and additional equity every quarter is increasing, that that would be accrued income or self-enrichment, but apparently that was not realized. so as a former judge, i know we look at other evidence to see if there are indication that anything might have been thought about the classification of this obvious income or benefit to most people. and the evidence points to a january, 1993 letter written to

to the resort in which chairman rangel said, i hope you can provide me with a copy of the contract we have with the resort, which includes the third bedroom addition. what equity has accrued and if there is an outstanding balance. he wasn't sure if there was an outstanding balance because even though he may not have been paying the mortgage, it was getting paid from somewhere. and even though he apparently did not realize that by others paying his mortgage for him, that it was income. he said in this letter, his words, as i mention to you, the house ethics committee requires the disclosure by members of congress of any assets and

unearned income. and while i enjoy a good relationship with the committee's chairman, it certainly would be politically embarrassing if i were unable to provide an accurate accounting of my holdings. apparently at the time he wrote the letter, he realized there were holdings. he realized that there was equity accruing, which many would consider a form of self-enrichment. he indicates that since members of congress are required to disclose assets and unearned income, that he would need the information from punta canna to indicate what income had come in. there has been the issue raised, well, gee, statements came back

in spanish and we didn't know what it all meant. however, the evidence indicates on a letter to chairman rangel, quote, please find enclosed your statement of account as of june 30, 1996, for the c.o. owners' rental pool that shows a total net income, and apparently the word income, in english, in the letter, did not resonate with chairman rangel that income meant, it's income, and it didn't trigger the thought that maybe since they're saying it's income, i should report it on this thing called an income tax return, but it says net income of u.s. dollars, $3,294.95. so i understand, since that's spelled out in english, that can be a bit confusing, especially

when they say the net income to chairman rangel was this specific amount. but then again maybe self-enrichment means something other than what i understand and i think most people understand that you make money off something. well, the original financial disclosure -- i didn't even ask about this stuff until i heard chairman rangel use the term that he had never -- there was no self-enrichment. so i asked for the documentation here just this afternoon because i was struck by -- no self-enrichment? that doesn't sound right. but apparently the 1998 original financial discle shower, this was -- disclosure, after the letter was sent to the company saying i have to disclose all assets on my financial disclosure, i have to disclose this income, even after he got a

letter saying, here is how much you had in u.s. dollars in income, he doesn't disclose it on the financial disclosures for 1998-1999 -- 1998, 1999, 2000, per letter agreement and then finally in 2001, he does start reporting the income between $5,000 around $15,000, until 2004 when the category was $2,500 to $5,000. and -- but also in the evidence in the record, it shows that for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, no income was reported from this income as described from punta canna on the original income tax

returns of chairman rangel. and i suffer from the problem of having before i was a judge and chief justice, having been in the federal courtroom of a judge who was known to tell people he sentenced who had not reported every dime of income they actually had, so found guilty of failing to pay all of their income tax, income tax fraud, he would instruct them that they had committed this horribly heinous crime. the reputation was that they would be lectured. that they'd committed this heinous crime by taking the food out of mouths of children who couldn't feed themselveses or shelter from those who had none, by this heinous crime.

and then be sent to prison, doing hard time in prison. so i didn't get as concerned about this until i heard the chairman himself saying here on this floor there was no self-enrichment, you know, just innocent mistakes. yet, in his own words in his own letter, he acknowledges he needs to know what his income from punta canna, his villa there, he indicate he is has to disclose these things, even though he didn't and didn't report for years on his income tax return the fact that people were paying to rent his villa and that money was going to pay off his mortgage. see, i think most people across america who may not even know what the ways and means committee is and that it writes

the tax laws, they have an idea that if they buy a home, or they buy a villa, whether in dominican republic or here in the united states, and it's leased out, and after paying expenses for the home there is additional money left that is used to pay off the mortgage and then is eventually sent in a check to that person who bought the home, they kind of get it that that is income. that that is self-enrichment. that's why so many people donna they can afford it. because they like the idea of renting out a facility, having others pay off their mortgage on that, and then they end up owning it but they understand when people are paying off their mortgage for them, that is income. now, it is true, i have the luxury of having sold, cashed out virtually all my wife's and

my assets, retirement accounts, because i believe so strongly in the need to change the direction this country was going, so as gets reported annually back in texas, i have less assets than anyone and -- right now because we have such a wonderful, nice home, we're trying to sell that. we'll be -- we're in the black when it comes to net assets. but without the home we're not. but i don't have the difficulty that chairman rangel does because i cashed out my assets to live on while i ran to be in this body. but i took income tax law in law school and i read through the income tax forms before. now for a number of years we

have an accountant do it. but it's staggering how many people that i talk to that -- some never went to college but they get the idea that if you buy a home, buy a villa, and rent it out and that rent pays your mortgage and then eventually the rent is sent to you, that's income. both cases, when it's used to pay off the mortgage and when it comes to you, it's income. it sure looks like from the chairman's letter in 1993 that he knew it was too. at least at that time. perhaps within a short time after he wrote that letter, maybe he forgot. and when we heard the stories about information being in spanish and i don't speak spanish, that has some sense but most people would say, i better get somebody who speaks spanish to read these documents so we know what is income and what

isn't. there's a lot more evidence but that is pertaining to the villa in the dominican republic. i think it was wonderful that he was able to have a vacation home like that and to have people pay it off for him. but it's certainly -- it certainly should be able to be discerned by the chairman of the ways and means committee that that's income. so when we hear talk during that proceeding about precedent, and you know, even a little modicum of the history of this place and how we got this, because of the sacrifice of so many, who give up everything just as our soldiers do, and then we have someone say, hey, don't forget, i served honorably. it broke my heart every time i

had to send someone to prison who had served honorably but later was convicted of a felony. and came before me as a judge. it was heartbreaking. and i bet if duke cunningham had to do it all over again, a former member of this body and extremely deck kated, i understand the greatest ace pilot we had in the vietnam war, i bet he would like to know that the rangel defense is, if you served honorably before you don't get in trouble other than having the speaker tell you to pay back taxes you owe. what kind of censure was that? you would think a censure is saying, you did wrong in very blunt terms but instead, it sounded like, hey, just go pay the taxes you obviously owe.

it's amazing. just amazing. i did not intend to get into this tonight but i was so taken aback that someone would stand here on this floor and say there was no self-enrichment when the evidence seems to speak for itself. i know i'm limited by the rules as to what i can say about it but the evidence seems to speak for itself. how could there be such ignorance of what self-enrichment is. it's staggering. and then, before i speak, i have to listen to a colleague from across the aisle who tells us that actually bush gave us $4 gas, in his words.

it's nice when people take responsibility for what they've done. it's not so nice when people blame others for the mistakes they themselves have made. and it is interesting that since the democrat majority took control of this body and chairmanship of every committee, that they could still blame bush for everything that happened in 2007 and 2008 even though the constitution puts the responsibility squarely on congress to have a budget to make appropriations. not the administration. constitutionally it's this body's obligation to appropriate and not spend too much money. how do you blame the president? we know when the republicans

took the majority in 1994 and were sworn in with the majority in 1995, if you believe the constitution, then it was the republican congress that balanced the budget in those days and if you go back historically and look, though president clinton takes credit, oftentimes he was rather upset about the thing this is congress did to get the budget balanced. now he takes full credit and congratulations and apparently there was something to having a congress that was in different hands than the president because certainly when president bush took office in 2001, though i wasn't here, there apparently was a giddyness a wow, we've got the house, the senate, white house, now we can just spend like we never have before. all of this restraint, the

republican congress had used in the late 1990's seemed to go out the window. so we ran deficits and democrats were proper to point those things out in my first two years of 2005 and 2006. they're right. we should not have run a deficit budget. but the claim was if you give us the gavel in january of 2007, we'll fix all that. instead that is not what happened. so to continue to correct things that have been said here inappropriately this week, including today, even heard the speaker, madam speaker, herself, say a number of times, at least once, and then many times said in here, that it's in essence irresponsible to have across the board tax cuts, just extend the current tax rate as it is into

the future. now even though the lowest rate is 10% and those that earn the highest amount of money pay 35% and even though common sense would tell you if the rate were 10% across the board for poor and rich alike, the rich would still pay more money. the more you pay -- the more you make, the more you pay. except what many people don't realize is that the people on wall street that make so very much money, that contribute to democrats 4-1 over republicans, that as art laffer explains, rich people like that have control over the amount of income they bring in in a given year. they have control over where that income is paid. they have control over the

manner in which it's paid. they can control all kinds of things about their income. whereas someone who is a wage earner, a brick mason, as laffer has pointed out, he has to lay the bricks where they are. he can't control where he derives income. the wealthy can and have moved from states or cities that increase their taxes too high. because the rich can control those things. so warren buffet, how noble to say he should be paying more taxes. well, it would seem to me to be a whole lot more noble if he'd just pay them. instead of allowing his accountants and lawyers to come up with all kinds of schemes and ways to manipulate the income so he doesn't pay the tax that he would if he were paying a 10%, 15%, 20%, 30% tax. but when you are wealthy, you are in a position to control how you receive income, what years

you receive it in, and so many people have been receiving income who are wealthy this year before the rates go up january 1. and i've heard from people who are wealthy that they have money to invest, they have money that they would like to spend to create housing developments and things. but, you know, they're just -- there's just too much uncertainty with regard to the taxes so they are going to do the building -- so they aren't going to do the building. it would be insane, they believe, i think rightly, to start building homes when no one is buying them. because nobody's sure what the future will hold in the way of taxes. so those who are in a position to create jobs, they're not creating them because of the uncertainty created by this majority and this administration. and we've been told, you know, even though we are in december now and the tax rates go up greater than they ever have in the history of this country on

january 1. so there's all this uncertainty. capital gains rates shoot up. all these marginal rates, every rate of income taxes can -- goes up. and the thing to do is just extend the rates to give that certainty. but oh, no, we probably would have done that but there was just too much we had to cover. so today, for example, we had to take up debate and deal with the airport and airway extension act of 2010. well, obviously airports are important. we had to take up debate and vote for taking time to have a recorded vote supporting the goals and aideals of national gear up day -- ideals of national gear up day. some of these things that we took up are nice, worthy things. some of which are very helpful

to people. but how much more helpful would it be to give some certainty to the economy so people could have a real job before we get to christmas? give them a job, give them the hope. but oh, no, we're too busy to give some certainty to the economy so people can start creating jobs again. so we have to take up the bill and debate it on expressing support for the designation for the month of october as national work and family month. we took up belatedly, and that's wonderful, that's fine, national work and family month. but how much better to have taken up the issues of the tax rate, made sure they were stable on into next year, so that jobs would be created?

wouldn't that have been better than spending all this time debating and voting on the congratulations and how wonderful it is to have a national work and family month? i mean, that's nice. but wouldn't it have been better to actually create jobs and create work so that people could have money to spend on their family? you know, we passed a bill that gave unemployment benefits for 99 weeks, for goodness sakes. that is expiring, but wouldn't it have been better to say, you know what, it's been 26 weeks and you haven't found a job because there isn't one in the area in which you are trained. so rather than pay you to sit around the house for another year and a half, and i know people are hurting, and i know, i understand. but wouldn't it be better to say, so, you didn't find a job in your area of expertise and training, experience, in 26

weeks, over six months, so we're going to see that you get trained to an area where there is jobs? so you'll have expertise and training in an area where there are jobs. so you don't have to sit around the house because people get depressed, they lose their sense of self-worth and value when they don't have a job and yet this government prefers to keep people as endentured servants and keep having them have to reach out to the government for help because we refuse to incentivize people to reach their god-given potential and instead we lure them into ruts from which they cannot extricate themselves. that's what we've done for 45 years, with young single women. hey, you're bored with high school, i've had women tell me this in court, we're bored with

high school, some friend, and i've heard a dividend say it was her mother that said, hey, just drop out and have a baby. the government will send you a check. what? this government is incentivizing people not finishing high school? i know that the great society legislation was born out of the best of intentions, because there were dead beat dads who were not helping. and they should have had to pay a high price. but for goodness sakes, don't incentivize, luring people into a rut because these young women would come in before my court charge and in some cases with felony welfare fraud and others with drug dealing, because they would find out, well, gee, i can't leave on -- live on this little check for one child that was born out of wed lock, so maybe if i have another and another and another and eventually they're in a hole and they have no hope.

and our government lured them into that. i know there were good intentions but good intentions are immoral when they deprive people of a chance and opportunity and lure them into a hole they can't get out of. that is not a government function. that is not what we're to be about. and all this talk over and over about how we have to pay the $700 billion it will cost if we keep the same tax rates into next year, well it flies in the face of the facts and the facts are very clear. so let me just -- i know we've heard a lot of opinion on this floor about, gosh, it will be $700 billion loss. why? because that's the kind of thing c.b.o. says. why? because c.b.o. doesn't deal in

the real world. they deal in an area of keynesian economics where they are not allowed to look at the facts to make predictions for the future. how stupid is that? that this body relies on a group like c.b.o. who has their hands tied, who can't look at history to determine the future? so they're able to come out and say something ridiculous like, gee, if you allow the wealthier people in america to have the same tax rate, it's going to cost the american treasury $700 billion because there is no evidence in our history that that is -- that has has ever happened in reality -- that that has ever happened in reality, that when you have a lower tax it costs revenue. now, the fact is, and this is where you get into the so-called

laffer curve, that art laffer came up with, and it's amazing that some people, particularly on msnbc, cannot figure this out. but if you tax zero you'll get zero revenue. pretty basic. if you tax 100 or -- 100% or 150%, let's say 100%, you tax every dime somebody makes, then they're going to quit working. why should they work when the government's going to take every dime? and they don't get to keep any of it? why would they work? they won't. it's very clear. one of the reasons the soviet union failed. so somewhere between 0% tax and 100% tax you have a percentage that will maximize the return, the revenue to the federal government that the federal government can then use to carry out its government.

and its governmental functions. so there is a point. it's ridiculous for somebody to say, so, i guess at 0% tax we'll have all kinds of revenue coming in. that's ridiculous. what a bogus thing to say. it's between 0% and 100%. you find the point and that was the point of the laffer curve. you get to one point here where you continue to tax beyond that, you discourage people working. you discourage people working and making more money than they have -- then they have less money to pay others to do things like feed them at restaurants or clothe them or to buy a bigger, nicer house, or to buy more cars. those kind of things. it stimulates the economy when people have more of their money and they can buy more, do more with their own money. so of course you don't get more revenue at 0%.

but obviously as john f. kennedy found when he cut taxes and as reagan found when he cut taxes and despite the misinformation spewed on this floor, the fact is that when taxes have been cut, revenues go up. each time it's been done. but we have such an ignorant way for c.b.o. to operate, so for this political animal, and i know people say, it's bipartisan, bologna. c.b.o. is not bipartisan. they can say what they want. but if c.b.o. were really bipartisan the facts wouldn't be as clear as they are about what c.b.o. has done. they are quite partisan and i know that director was not happy when i previously pointed out how well they cooperated with the white house in misconstruing

the cost of, like, obamacare after he was wood sheded at the white house, but sometimes the facts hurt and that one obviously did. because whether c.b.o. and the director realize it or not, they have done the president's bidding. they came in, what, $200 billion, $250 billion under where they should have been if they'd used their own ridiculous rule. but we need bills scored by groups that can look at history and look at reality and c.b.o., joint tax commission, they need to be done away with. we can save money and have more accurate projections, more honorable, reliable projections if we hired that out to independent entities that are allowed to look at real world facts. so here are some real world facts. for all of my friends that are ignorant of the facts of what

happens when you cut high tax rates and make them a bit lower, we know that in 2003, these were the tax rates that took effect that have been extended and that we're seeking to extend. not tax cuts but just to extend the same rates and when those tax cuts were fully implemented, after 2003 in which they occurred, we should get some idea of what the real world facts are that c.b.o. cannot rely on. because they're not a realistic entity because of the rules under which they operate. so, 2003, before the tax rates kicked in, those that were operating under the 2002 tax rates and rules, in 2003 the federal government took in $1,

782,321,000,000. that one -- that $1.8 trillion. well, the following year the so-called bush tax cuts had taken effect, so after the $1.782 trillion federal revenue and the tax cuts went in, gee, did we lose $700 billion? no. we did not. actually what happened is the federal revenue climbed to $1.88 trillion and in 2005 it jumped up again to $2.153 trillion and the next year it jumped up yet again in 2006 to $2.406

trillion. massive gains and increases in federal revenue after the tax cut took effect. there is no reality in losing $700 billion when you continue these same tax rates. but boy, we will create disincentives for those who create jobs if we don't extend the tax rates across the board for everybody. and for those who are concerned that, gee, they should pay more, they'd be paying more if it was across the board a 10% income tax. but they're sure paying more when the lowest tax rate for the poorest americans is 10% and the highest tax rate for the wealthiest is 35%. but when that shoots up another

5% come january 1, there's not going to be the incentives to create new jobs. people are going to have to pull back in their spending because they'll have 5% less to deal with. not the warren buffetts, they'll still have accountants to find out how to move income to different places, how to make it part of something that's not taxable, all of that will hoeppner super wealthy, but there was a book, i recall, back in the 1990's, i believe, about millionaires in america and i recall reading that the most popular vehicle for millionaires in america to drive was not what one might think. not a lexus, not a mercedes, not a really high powered car. the most popular vehicle,

according to what i read, for millionaires in america, was a ford f-150 truck. and yet, friends across the aisle try to paint millionaires as being, you know, these mean-spirited people that just want to take all the money for the poor. they'd like to hang on to what they built in their lifetime and paid taxes on, but these aren't the warren buffetts, the bill gates, the michael dells, where they can adjust income the way they take it and avoid paying taxes at the same rate as people even in the lowest tax rate. these are people who build businesses from nothing and along comes the federal government at the end of their life, and it will start again january 1, and the federal government says you know what, you worked too hard, saved too much, we're going to take 55% of everything you save. so for most of these small

businesses that are built from scratch, and most of the family farms that are built over generations, as my great aunt and uncle did over generations, the federal government comes in and says, you know what, like in my case, my great aunt lily, you know what, you've got -- she had about 2,000 -- around 2,500 acres, valued at the time of her death around $2,000 an acre, approximately a $5 million estate. we'll take 55% of that. we'll give you an exclusion but within a year, the values because there's a lot of dumping the land around there, fdic and all that, values fell $600 or $700 so the i.r.s. took every single acre of that farm that took over 100 years and generations to build. it is immoral. it is immoral for this body to

say, you worked too hard, saved too much, accumulated things for your family, so we're going to take over half of it. that's outrageous. it needs to stop. but the gavel was handed to the democratic majority in january of 2007, we have to give some credit where credit is due, despite what my friend across the aisle said about bush giving us $4 gas, actually he was trying to do things like drill in areas that would have brought down the price of gasoline and yet this administration and this majority, majority beginning january of 2007, began to take actions, it seemed like it was basically monthly, where we were putting more and more land off limits to drilling, off limits to production of minerals and oil and gas and things that people relied on to have lower gas prices. let's give credit where credit

is due. then, i heard on greta van sust ren's show, when she interviewed donald trump, he had the solution to create manager jobs in america. he said the credit, what you've got to do, create more jobs in america. like comedian steve martin used to say, i'll write a book on how to have $10 million and not pay taxes. first, get $10 million. then you just don't pay taxes. to say the way to solve the problem is to create jobs, well, of course. but eventually she pinned him down and asked him, how would you specifically, what specifically could you say to do? he said put a 25% tariff or tax on theavering we buy from china. that'll solve the problem. as smart as that man is, as well as he has done, obviously he

hadn't spent his life in government service because unless you're able to figure out things i haven't that you can do legally, you don't make a lot of money. $170,000 sounds like a lot but not compared to what you could do. but 25% tax on everything we buy from china. he doesn't realize that triggers all kind of penalty provisions of all kinds of treaties that we have. he doesn't realize what that would do in starting a trade war that we probably could not win. shocking. you want to get jobs going, the thing to do is to eliminate the 35% tariff on every american good produced by an american company in america. get rid of the 35% tariff, because that's what a corporate tax is now, let's be real about

it, it's a 35% tariff on every american corporate good that we sell. you cut 35% off the price of american goods produced in america by american companies and they'll be able to compete worldwide. madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gohmert: thank you for the time, i hope we will eliminate the 35% american tariff on american goods and with that, i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from florida, in deutsche, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. deutsche: thank you, madam speaker.

madam speaker, the holiday time is upon us. when americans from all walks of life share in values of generosity, good will, family and thankfulness. mr. deutch: yet this holiday spirit is absent here tonight as congress once again finds itself in partisan gridlock. doing absolutely nothing to ease the worry felt by families across america during these difficult times. tonight, the clock is ticking for two million americans unable to find work and on the verge of losing their unemployment insurance. they worry and they war arery greatly. how they'll meet their next mortgage payment, how they'll put food on the table or how

they might be able to afford a gift or two for their children this year at this season. likewise, tonight millions of workers across america wonder if a tax increase is headed their way. they've been suffering from stagnant wages and fewer hours for years. but without these tax cuts, they know the times will get even harder. they're not asking for much, just a few extra hundred dollars in their paychecks next year. yet they're holding their breath tonight because those on the other side of the aisle are holding middle class tax relief hostage in favor of tax cuts for millionaires. holding off providing tax relief to the middle class at a time when it is so desperately needed. tonight, the retirees in my district and across america

worry that their needs are going unnoticed by congress. already, just today, in the united states senate, democratic efforts to provide some measure of benefit to seniors who have now gone two years in a row without a cost of living adjustment to their social security even as their costs go up every single year. efforts to provide them with just a payment to help them through these difficult times were cut off. cut off as a result of this partisanship. come january, if the republicans have their way, health care reform will be repealed and the doughnut hole will be reopened. saddling seniors with massive prescription drug bills. in short, political posturing is

threatening to reverse the progress this congress has made and more importantly at this difficult time, it is political posturing that threatens to hold up a middle class tax cut, that threatens to hold up an extension of unemployment benefits even as two million americans are starting to see their benefits end and it is indeed this posturing that will make things exceedingly more difficult for our seniors. so instead of giving middle class americans some peace of mind this holiday season, which is what we ought to be doing, the republicans in congress are demanding another $700 billion for those who don't need that tax cut right now, or at least if there is to be a debate a further debate, on the merits of that tax cut, let's do what everyone wants, what everyone knows is necessary, and provide

that tax relief to the middle class and let's do it now. now, nothing drove home some of these misplaced priorities, placing profits all too often ahead of people and more importantly and obviously, these past few days putting partisan gain ahead of old fashioned compromise, compromise that americans want us to make, nothing drove that home for me more than a recent letter i received from a dear friend, a mother with a child who needed some medical care and i'd like to read this letter on the floor of the house of representatives today because i'd like to give voice to the millions of mothers and fathers across america who have felt the anxiety and the powerlessness that comes when the child is sick and health

insurance company denies a claim. the letter reads as follows. my bimy friend amy. she said, -- by my friend amy. she said losing control was a luxury i didn't have. yet my hands were shaking uncontrollably as i held the letter from the insurance company about my 6 1/2-year-old son's third open heart surgery. patient, date of birth, description of surgery, replacement of aortic. elective. elective? that's right, we were electing to save my little boy's life. i felt myself about to explode, literally explode. blood and guts in that -- and that second bowl of pasta i should never have eaten anyway would be splattered all over the turkish rug on our bedroom floor. three, two, one, i held it in.

because, she write, i am a mommy. i had to keep it together for my three young, beautiful, willful boys, one kindergartener with congenital heart disease whose heart happened to be failing again, who just the other day asked, mommy, if i have to go to heaven early, will you go with me. i glanced up from the letter at my husband who handed it to me moments ago my sweet, it'll all work out husband, who look sod tired and helpless, and i said with all the conviction of a mother who had nothing to lose and everything to fight for, i'm going to bomb them. he laughed. i'm going to the store to buy vinegar and pop rocks or whatever you're supposed to mix together. more uproars you laughter that trailed off when he realized i

wasn't laughing. that's when i understood them, the people on the news who sometimes snap. i understood how that someone could be me. i told my increasingly worried looking husband that the insurance company should not mess with the mommy species. what i told one friend about my violent thought she offered, i'll come light the fuse. another said if i were sent to prison she'd go with me in solidarity plus i could stand to go on a bread and water diet if i'm ever going to fit into my jeans. the truth, is there's not a single mom yi know who wouldn't go to jail to protect her kids. certain things in life just are not a choice. they are a given. like, she wrote, my son's upcoming surgery. i looked down at the letter and felt another wave of anger overtake me, she writes. i mean, i had my issues with our nation's health care. but even i didn't think that it had gone that far astray and yet

how dare they, them in that office building, so far removed from anything our family was going through, call our son being hooked up to that damn heart lung machine for seven hours elective? here are some of the only things i deem elective about fixing my son's heart. after his last open heart surgery, when he started slipping into a coma, i elected to kick the nurses and doctors in the intensive care unit out of his room. and screamed at my son, yes, i literally yelled at the poor beautiful boy lying there with chest tubes and other wires spilling out of him. this is your mommy talking, you hear? wake up. don't you even think about leaving me, you're just a kid. and you don't even know how to swim. 20 minutes later he woke up and we're still working on the swimming. recently, soon after we had to

quarantine our son so he would be germ-free for this latest operation, i elected to have botox injected over my eyebrows, she writes. i wanted to make myself look perkier so no one would think i was worse for the wear from this ordeal and feel sorry for me. when a child died somewhere in the midwest, his parents elected to sign the or began donor form so that my son could have his valve to save his own life. there are not enough benefits in the world assigned to that kind of her women. but -- heroism. but what of the insurance letter in my hands? i'll call them tomorrow, my husband said, we'll straighten it out and then more laughter. this time it wasn't my husband laughing, but our three willful boys who just that second ran into our room, shooting one another with nerf guns. i got evan on the butt, one screamed, exhilarated. so what? that tickled. evan recoiled on the floor with laughter but not before he

nailed benjamin with three foam darts on the back of his head. yes, technically the family rule is not to shoot at a person. but who were we to interfere with this kind of unbridled frivolity? that was something we would never elect to do. i would like to thank my friend amy for allowing me to share her story tonight. it was horror stories like these that propelled this congress to move forward on health care reform. to reform a system so that no family is put into a situation where life-saving surgery can be deemed elective. and as we stand here at this holiday season, the members of this congress, members of this

house of representatives, all 435 of them, the members of the united states senate, all 100 of them, all 535 of us who are employed, who have the benefit of working for the citizens of the united states have a duty to those citizens at this time, at this time of year in particular, to ensure that those who don't have jobs, don't see their benefits cut off so that they're not cast aside at this holiday season, unable to pay their mortgage, unable to afford a gift for their children. we spend a lot of time on the floor of this house debating the grand issues of the day. and i look forward to coming back here in january, in the new

congress, and having great debates about the future of our education system, about the war in afghanistan, about the best ways to reduce our deficit, about how we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. these are important debates that we need to have. but how can we let partisan gridlock, let the obstructionism that we've seen these past few days, how can we see that stand in the way of extending unemployment benefits to those who desperately need it? stand in the way of middle class tax cuts for those whose wages have been stagnant for so long? and stand in the way of doing -- providing just a little bit for the seniors who are struggling as well in this difficult, terribly difficult economic time?

i heard a lot about what people expect we should learn from the outcome of this election and the one thing that's perfectly clear to me and should be clear to all of us is that the american people want a congress that works for them, that does their business and that puts the americans' interests ahead of the political interests of those of us who are privileged to serve here. when we come back next week, let us resolve to do what needs to be done at this difficult moment , to ensure that those who don't have work can get by, that those who have been getting by can get the benefit of a tax break and that those seniors who have

given so much for so long can receive the benefit of a payment in lieu of two straight years without a cost of living adjustment. madam speaker, i look forward to coming back to perform that work. i look forward to passing those votes and i look forward to having those debates. the days in this 111th congress are short, but the people want us to get this done. it is time that we remember why it is that we have been sent here, working together we have to provide what everyone knows needs to be provided and to take those first steps as soon as we can upon our return. miami, that's what's at stake right now -- miami, that's

what's at stake -- madam speaker, that's what's at stake right now. let us not get so caught up in this holiday season to think that the joy that so many of us feel is felt all around the country, not when things are so difficult for so many. let us be thankful for what we all have, but let us work to ensure that everyone has at least a bit of joy this holiday season. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: madam speaker, i rise tonight with a heavy heart to pay tribute to someone who has been an invalued advisor and

friend to me during my 10 years in this house. congressman ike skelton has served the fourth district of missouri and the nation with honor and integrity for 34 years. and let me just say that his presence will certainly be missed by me and by so many others. as a freshman member of the house armed services committee in 2001, i looked to ike then, our ranking member, as a mentor and a guide on so many critical and complex issues facing the committee. later as the chairman of the house armed services committee, his commitment to our troops and our security truly set the standard for all of us on the committee and the example he set helped to bridge the partisan, geographical and personal differences that have stood in the way of progress. ike skelton is truly -- has truly made a profound difference in advocating for and leading on

behalf of our men and women in uniform to make sure that they always had the tools and the resources that they needed to do their job, do it well and to come home safe. of course as much as i have admired him as a leader on national security, let me just say that i've also felt a very separate and even more personal connection to ike as well. ike skelton, like me, has in many ways for many years lived his life with his own disability. and from those experiences both of us have learned at a young age that life often takes a very unexpected path. that path has led us both to a career that neither of us could have ever imagined or expected. lying in a hospital bed all those years ago, contemplating what the future might hold for us. but clearly ike skelton overcame

his own physical challenges and made a difference for others. and now in his long and aspiring career in congress nears its end, i wanted to offer chairman ike skelton my deepest and most profound gratitude for his leadership, his wisdom and for his friendship. ike, it has been a true honor to serve with you. i thank you for the decades that you have dedicated to this house. i thank you for the difference that you've made in fighting on behalf of our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, fighting for them to make sure that they always had what they needed to continue to serve and be effective. this country and this house have been a better place because of your service. thank you and god bless and god speed. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, for 60 minutes. mr. bartlett: thank you very much. madam speaker, i have come to this floor nearly 50 times to talk about an energy subject. the last time that i was here in the well addressing this subject was about two years ago. during those nearly 50 appearances i came here as a prophet and now i return to the floor as an historian. because the event that i was concerned about and predicting has in fact occurred. let me explain. in the middle of the last

century, two speeches were given by men just about a year apart. i'm not sure they even knew each other. they both talked about the same subject. the first of those speeches was given in 1956. it was, i think, the most important speech of the last century. it was given by an oil geologist to a group of oil men in san antonio, texas, in 1956. at that time the united states was king of oil. we produced more oil, we exported more oil, we used more oil than any other nation in the world. m. king hub bard predicted to that audience that in just 14 years the united states would reach its maximum oil production, that would be in 1970. and then we would produce less

and less each year after that. remember the context, united states in 1956 is the largest oil producer in the world, the largest oil exporter in the world, the largest oil user in the world. this was an absolutely preposterous prediction and so m.k. hubbered was relegated to the lunatic fringe. just a year later, about a year later, the father of our nuclear submarine gave a speech in 1957, may 15, i believe, in st. paul, minnesota. to a group of physicians. the audience is irrelevant. you can google and get this speech, it was found a few years ago and it's now on the internet, if you google for rick over the -- overt, energy

speesm, it will come up. the speech had nothing to do with the audience he was talking to because he could have been talking to any audience. he noted that we lived in this golden age of oil. we had been about 100 years into that age of oil and he noted how much of the quality of life that we enjoyed then was the result of having discovered how to exploit this resource that we found under the ground. every barrel of oil, and when i first heard this statistic, i was unbelieving, how can it be? every barrel of oil had the energy equivalent of 25,000 man hours of effort. that means when oil was $10 a barrel, $12 a barrel, that wasn't all that long ago, you

could buy the energy enhancing qualities of a person working for you all year long and you could buy it for $1. because there are 12 man-years of effort in a barrel of oil. when i first heard that statistic, when i first read it, i said, gee, that can't be true. then i thought, i drive a prius car, it gets, if you're careful how you drive, it's $50 miles per gallon, a little less in the winter. with the winter blends. if i pushed my prius 50 miles, i could do that, it would take me a long time to pull and push my prius 50 miles, just one gallon of oil out of a barrel of oil will take my prius 50 miles. i thought, gee, it's probably

true, there are probably 25,000 man hours of energy in a barrel of oil. a scientist, rickover, made the statement that oil would not last forever he said in the 8,000-year recorded history of man, that the age of oil would be but a blip. he had no idea how long the age of oil would be. when he spoke we were about 100 years into the age of oil, he did not know how long it would last but he was certain in the 8,000-year recorded history of man, it would be but a blip. we now know how long the age of oil is. by the way, he made several meaningful statements, one was how long it lasted was important in only one regard. the longer it lasted, the more time we had to plan an orderly transition to other sources of energy.

of course, we have done none of that. we now know how long the age of oil will be. we're now about 150 years into the age of oil and we're not going to run out of oil for a while. but what we are running out of is our ability to produce oil as fast as we would like to use it. back to h. king hubbard and his speech a year before rickover gave his reach in minnesota. 14 years elapsed and sure enough in 197 0rk we didn't know it in 1970 because we had to look back a few years after that to see, was it really flew but in 1970, we did indeed reach a maximum oil production in the united states. if you look back now at the oil production, it's very obvious that that was true. by 1980, it was conspicuously true.

we were really now moving down the other side of what is frequently called hubbard's peak. so i tell audiences that we have now blown 30 years. when we knew of an absolute certainty that m. king hubbard was right about the united states, we did peak in oil production in 1970, and he predicted the world would be peaking about now. it's very rational that the united states would be a microcome of the world. and if he was right about the united states peaking in 1970, shouldn't we have had some concern that he might just be right about the world peaking about now? we peaked in oil production in spite of the fact that we have found oil in alaska and gulf of mexico that m. king hubbard did not include in his predictions.

and in spite of the fact that we have now drilled more oil wells than all the rest of the world put together. not only have we peaked in oil production, but we've slid so far down the other side of hubbard's peak that we now produce just about half the oil that we produced in 1970. as a matter of fact, we have only 2% of the known reserves of oil in the world and we use 25% of the world's oil. we really know how to pump oil because with that 2% of the world's reserves of oil, we pump 8% of the world's oil. what that means, of course, is that on the average, our wells are going to run dry sooner than the average well around the world because we're pumping our oil four times faster than the

average well. in the world. i have some charts here that may illuminate what we've been talking about. i've not seen the sequence of these charts, so we'll just speak to them as they come up. the first chart is what is known as the oil chart. peak oil, the growing gap. if you had but a single chart to look at to tell the story of where we have come from and where we're going, this, i think, would be the chart. as you can see, it's a little out of date. because we were predicting the future back there in about 2005, now we're at 2010. when we get to that part of the chart, we'll see how very correct this chart was in its prediction. the horsontal -- the vertical bars here are the discoveries of oil and when we discovered it.

you notice that back in the late 1930's and 1940's, there was meaningful discoveries and boy, they just crescendoed through the 1960's and 1970's and some in the 1980's. now this solid black line here is our consumption of oil. of course the area under that curve indicates the total consumption of oil up to that time system of you can see up until the 1980's, we were discovering oil faster than we were using it. so we were accumulating an ever bigger and bigger reserve of oil. that's all this oil above that use line. it's a production line and use line. i think we used it as we produced it, so it's both the pumping of oil and the

consumption of oil. now, since the 1980's, we have had to dip into these reserves because our discovery are of oil has fallen down and down and down since the 1980's. as a matter of fact, we now find only about one barrel for over four, five, or six barrels of oil that we pump. now you can make some predictions about the future from this oil chart. how much oil will we be using? this is the world, by the way. world oil production. world use of oil. how much reserves do we have left and how long will they take us? you can make some guesses about how much more oil we will find and we're now finding some meaningful reservoirs of oil. we may find a reservoir of oil with 10 billion barrels of oil. that sounds like a lot of oil,

doesn't it? maybe our concerns about the future of oil go away when we found 10 billion barrels of oil. we use 84 million barrels of oil a day in the world. it's pretty simple arhett me tick. -- arithmetic to figure out how many times 84 million go into a billion, and it's a bit less than 12. what a that means is that in less than 12 days, the world uses a billion barrels of oil. what that means is when they tell you we have discovered a field of 10 billion barrels of oil that will last the world 120 days. now how much more oil will we find? much of the oil that we are finding now, we are not pumping.

because you can't even develop those fields at $85, $90 a barrel, wherever we are today, it's got to be more expensive than that before you can afford to develop the fields and pump the oil. also, in these new fields which are generally very deep, maybe under 7,000 feet of ocean and 30,000 feet of rock, some of the big finds in the gulf of mexico were, oil has to be a bit higher than it is today before you can afford to develop those fields. then one never knows how much oil you're going to get in fact from those fields. back to the oil chart here. if you look at -- here's the 1970's. remember the arab oil embargo and the big shocks we had in the 1970's? that produced some dramatic and

very fortunate changes in the world. in its use of oil. notice, notice this exponential curve. up to the 1980's. to the arab oil embargo of the 1970's and 1980's. had that continued, had that exponential curve continued, it would be off the top of the charts. that was a real shock to the world's economy and to our country. and we developed some more efficient ways of using energy, so now with more people living better, the slope now is very much lower than that previous slope. i just want to pause and reflict for a moment on this ex-po -- and reflect for a moment on this

exponential function because it's a poorly understood function. when someone tells you that there's enough coal, for instance, to last us 250 years at current use rate, be careful to note that at current use rate. the national academy of sciences says we probably don't have 250 years of coal at current use rates. it's probably closer to 100 years of coal at current use rates because we haven't really looked at those reserves since the 1970's. but let's say we had 250 years of coal. at current use rate. and we're going toin crease its use only 2%. -- going to increase its use only 2%. that's not that much. our stock market doesn't like an economy growing at only 2%.

but if we increase the use of oil just 2%, the 250-year supply drops to 85 years. you see, just 2% increase in growth doubles in 35 years. it's four times bigger in 70 years. it's eight times big for the 105 years, it's 16 times bigger in 140 years. there's a very interesting story about the exponential function. i don't know whether it's true or not but it's a nice story. chess was invented in an ancient country and the king was so impressed with the contribution that he told the inventor of the chess board he would give him anything he wished up to half

his kingdom. and the inventor of the chess game said, i'm a very simple man, i have simple needs. if you will just take my chess board and put a grain of wheat on the first block and two grains on the second and four on the third and eight on the fourth and just continue doubling those grains of wheat until you have reached the last of those, what, 64 blocks on the chess board that will be adequate. the king thought to himself, silly fellow. i would have given him anything up to half my kingdom and all he