John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend for yielding. You know, some of the Members of this august body that are living just a normal life, they ought to be looking at this, and folks back home ought to be looking at this and thinking how can you spend all that money without having a budget? And then they think about what kind of a great deal would it be at my house if I could just say, you know what, kids, mom, I tell you what, let's do, let's just do whatever makes us happy. Let's pick up all the pet projects in the world that we favor and let's just spend our money on that. Let's go out and buy the things we want to buy. Let's go places we want to go and do things we want to do. And just throw that budget that we used to have, throw it in the trash, and this year let's don't budget. Let's spend the money. And hey, mom, I don't want you to worry that we don't have a budget because we don't need a budget. Hey, we will borrow the money to pay these bills. That's no problem. And if we can't get somebody to loan us the money here, we will go to China and get the people in China to loan us the money to pay these bills, and we will be fine. And oh, you are worried about paying it back? Hey, let the grandkids pay it back. You know, they are going to have a good life. Surely they are going to have a good life. And they don't need as good as we got. So let's let them pay it back, and let's put it on their shoulders. And if they are smart, they will figure out a way to stick it down on their grandkids' shoulders. And we will just keep this runaway spending going forever. I don't think that most people would see that as a way to run your household. Or the businessmen that are sitting down at the board meeting, and they are saying, you know, we had a budget last year, but this year let's throw that budget out and let's just do what we think is going to make us do well this year for ourselves personally, and let's don't worry about what's going to happen in the future because we will borrow the money from China, and then we will put it down the road, far enough down the road that we will get other people's grandkids to pay for it. That doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense to the American people. It means that you are just--and you know, I get really excited when I hear like I heard the other night, when I heard some of my colleagues from the other side over here talking about what a wonderful job they had done, and they talked about PAYGO. PAYGO has saved the world. My gosh, we have just absolutely saved the world with PAYGO because we are paying for what we are spending unless it's an emergency. And so far everything we have done we have declared an emergency on. So, well, we didn't quite get PAYGO done, but that's okay, we believe in it. And it's something we believe in. What we are hearing from folks back home is, hey, times are tough. We need jobs, and you are doing your little pet projects down there, and you are spending this money that we are never going to be able to pay back, or we are afraid we will never be able to pay back, and we don't want to be Greece. You know, poor Greece. Right now they are kind of the poster child for what happens when you don't pay your bills. Well, if you crunch the numbers and we continue down the road that the Obama administration is taking this country, at the rate of acceleration of deficit spending that the Obama administration has given us, and by the way last night there were some charts put up there and just conveniently the deficit numbers on those charts stopped at the end of the Bush administration, so we didn't get to see that other line that the Obama administration put on there that drops clear off the charts. There you go. That one didn't happen to be on the charts when we were told the figures never lie. So it stopped right there at 2007. Let's look at it.

Mr. CARTER. So if I understand you, those other budgets you're talking about, those four others, there was--in those cases there was an attempt to pass a budget, but they never could reconcile. Maybe they couldn't reconcile the differences with the Senate or they couldn't even reconcile it within the Congress, but they certainly made a good- faith effort to try to get a budget passed and didn't get it done. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. CARTER. That's a Nancy Pelosi line. And then look what's happened since. And so it's true, figures don't lie. You just don't show them all, it makes a little bit of a difference. So I am glad you got that chart out. I just brought it up because I kept wanting to go raise my hand and say, Aren't there supposed to be some more lines on there? But anyway, that's another story. Back to what our folks back home were saying. They are looking at that, and they are saying, Who is going to pay for that? Well, it would be their grandchildren and our grandchildren and our colleagues across the aisle's grandchildren. I personally don't have any yet, but I am praying every night to have some grandchildren. When I do, I certainly don't want to start them out behind the eight ball. In fact, we most of the time work to try to make sure that we start our kids out ahead of where we started out if we can, just like our friend Mr. Jordan said a minute ago. And that's kind of what makes America great. Now, there are people that say, well, we have been deficit spending forever. But you know, these numbers we see here are on new ideas and new concepts. We don't see the threats, the outside threats the American people face, like the wars and so forth, being that big number. This is new energy, which may be a great idea, but thus far it's not replacing the energy we have got. And it's new projects and it's new concepts of, what I would call in nice language, a centrist form of government. And what we are really seeing here is a group of folks running amok with spending and not even being willing to do what their leader said the most basic responsibility of governing is, to have a budget. Well, why didn't they do that? Well, I think it's because we are too busy doing pet projects and making sure that we change America. It's more important to change than it is to get it right. And I think that's a question we need to be asking ourselves. We didn't know what ``change'' meant. Now we're starting to get a glimmer of what change means. And is that the change we want? I yield back.

Mr. CARTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARTER. I've heard that before.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Well, I thank the gentleman for coming down here and actually enlightening me on some facts that I was not aware of because, like I say, we retain our public lands in Texas. So we look at Texas, the issues--it's just as serious on the Texas border, but it's a different issue on the Texas border. But they're all serious. The incursions into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California are getting worse every time they occur, and it's time for us to unite and defend our borders. We need an immigration policy that works. I'm for that. I think everyone is. But I'm not for rewarding criminal behavior. I will never be rewarding criminal behavior. We need to stop the border and seal it up and then come up with an immigration policy that is fair and takes into mind that the law has a purpose in this country. It is the glue that holds this society together. I thank my friend for coming and joining me.

Mr. CARTER. I certainly do.

Mr. CARTER. And I thank my friend. Reclaiming my time, I thank you very much for that explanation. And, in fact, I learned a lot from the explanation. One of the questions that I was always curious about and should have asked is these vehicle barriers that they kept talking about were part of the fence, and they weren't really building a fence, but they were building vehicle barriers where the vehicles couldn't get back in there. And it was my impression from what I had learned from law enforcement that vehicles weren't their problem; it was foot traffic that was their problem. Now I learn the vehicles kept law enforcement's vehicles out.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I've been coming up here on the first day of each week that we're back in session to talk about the rule of law and how the rule of law needs to apply to those of us who serve here in Congress, those who serve in the administration, and that it is the glue that holds our society together. And if we, in turn, are going to circumvent the rules of law, then we, in fact, are chipping away at the very foundation of the American culture. Today we're going to shift gears a little bit because we've talked a lot about what's going on up here and some folks that have had some problems following the rules, but I don't think we've ever seen a more glaring example of a violation of the rule of law and the failure to enforce the law than what is happening on the southern borders of the United States. You see right here on May 17, 2010, Real Clear Politics, Threat on the Border with Mexico: Possible Terrorists Entering the U.S., and it's a picture of people climbing over a barrier, a very strange-looking barrier, to be honest with you. It's got a big hole in the middle of it. I don't understand exactly what it is. But we've had an issue, and those of us who have been in this Congress for a while have been very concerned, and I, in particular, have been very concerned about this situation down on the Texas-Mexico border, the New Mexico-, Arizona-, and California-Mexico border. So I want to go back with you for a while to when I first went with parts of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee to look at the border between Texas and Mexico. We've made trips. We've gone all up and down that border. I happen to have been on the one that was in my home State down on the border. I went with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Henry Cuellar, down to Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and Laredo, Texas, across the border. And we talked with the Border Patrol about their issues, and that was way back in, I believe, 2004, maybe 2005. I sat out in the dark with a Border Patrolman along the banks of the Rio Grande with his surveillance equipment, and it was in the wintertime, but it wasn't cold. It doesn't get real cold down in that part of Texas. ``Cool'' would be the word. It was not a whole lot colder than it is right now outside in Washington, D.C. And he and I watched, I think it was, 2 miles in either direction of the border. Right there, right next to what I would call the city, because right across the road was a housing project, were apartments, were hundreds of people walking in the streets. It was 10 o'clock at night, and there were people everywhere. I talked to him about the illegal crossings coming into this country, the danger. And it was a dangerous place. In fact, while we were on the bridge between Nuevo Laredo and Laredo, John Culberson picked up a flattened bullet head slug, if you will, from probably a 9-millimeter or something like that, that had flattened out when it hit the bridge, the international bridge between Mexico and the United States. He carries it around in his pocket with him now to remind people that this is dangerous business that our Border Patrol is dealing with down there. Well, since that time, international drug cartels have moved to the border of the United States, and they are fighting a border war just a stone's throw from the places where American citizens live up and down the border from Brownsville all the way across to San Diego, to Tijuana. The crime will take your breath away. I spent 20 years in the judiciary. Many of my colleagues did the same. I have seen lots of crime. I have tried lots of cases involving horrible situations. But while we were down there on that trip with my friend Henry Cuellar, we saw pictures in the Nuevo Laredo newspaper of a woman who was the wife of a police official in Laredo who had been kidnapped and burned alive, and she had been set down in a business chair very much like these ladies sitting over here that are taking down the minutes or are recording the proceedings, sat in that chair, had three tires full of gasoline shoved down around her body, and she had been set on fire and burned up alive. That was done as a threat to the police department in Laredo to either get in line with what the criminal element in Nuevo Laredo wanted to do or suffer the consequences. That was a shocking thing. I carried that back up here and showed it to our committee members. Some of them were ill from looking at it. And I pointed out that this is a lawless society we have created on this border. Now I have a theory, and I think my theory is based on some pretty good police discoveries we have made over the last 25 years in police work. During the time when they cleaned up New York City and made it a safer place to be, they discovered, and this was the chief of police and the mayor, at that time it was Rudy Giuliani, that a bad criminal environment breeds crime. So if you have a neighborhood where there are old junk cars in the front yard, there is trash in the front yard, they haven't taken things off the stoop, broken windows, that is a neighborhood without pride, and the criminal element breeds in that neighborhood. But if you get the criminal element out of there, you get the criminality of that environment out of there, the neighborhood improves. And you put a beat cop there that allows them to know that law enforcement is there, law enforcement is involved, then the public can feel confident, and they start to take care of their neighborhood and in turn make the crime move elsewhere. And they cleaned up New York City with that basic theory. They went back to the old, walk-the-beat cop theory that came out of the 19th century. Now, why do I mention that? Well, people say to me why do you think the cartels who were in Colombia and other parts of the country, why did they come and settle along the southern border of this country? I thought about it a lot. And it came to me that, you know what, lawlessness breeds lawlessness. So what were we creating on the border when we weren't enforcing some basic tenets of the law? We have laws that say you can't come into this country except legally. And millions of people, whether for good purpose or bad, and many, many for good purpose, I am not saying it is not, just for a job, but they were breaking our laws. And they were coming into this country. And where was this community of lawlessness? Along the Mexican border. That community of lawlessness, which was just sneaking people into the country and people sneaking into the country so, as many will tell you, just so they can get a job to feed their families. Of course there was a little criminal element, and a little more criminal element, and all of a sudden we have estimates of four or five drug cartels from Central and South America fighting a drug war from Brownsville to Tijuana, from Matamoros to Tijuana on the other side of the border. Twenty-three thousand people have been killed in the last 18 months in that war across the border. Mexico has brought in every kind of resource that they can afford to bring in to try to stop this, but it is out of control and it is bleeding across the border into my State and the other States that border Mexico. We are having a great conversation today in our country about a law that was passed by the State of Arizona. And I would argue that the State of Arizona, that law has a real clear message to the Federal Government: You know what, we have been waiting 10 to 15 years for anybody to realize how bad this is. Now back in 2004 and 2005, we were beefing up the Border Patrol and pouring homeland security money into building fence. We had resources that were dedicated to trying to stop this flood, but the flood was still coming. But they were doing the best they could, and they were catching a million, million and a half a day, but the estimate was for every one that got caught, 10 got across. The flood was ongoing. There are many reasons and faults you can lay upon that: employers were hiring these people and maybe they shouldn't; we didn't have a good identification system for people to know whether or not someone was an illegal alien in this country; and the argument goes on and on. But the reality was we were creating a lawless border from Matamoros to Tijuana. And that lawlessness drew in organized crime in the form of these cartels, and those cartels are slaughtering people, fighting it out on the streets. Sometimes gunfire is as prevalent on the border towns across the river from Texas as it is in Iraq or Afghanistan. Just recently, 35 people were killed in a shootout in Juarez, across the border from El Paso, in one day. Many of those were Federal officers of the Mexican federal police force and the army. You say well, what does that have to do with us? Phoenix, Arizona, one of the places where a lot of folks up north go to get some warm weather in the wintertime, a really wonderful town. I have been there, it is a great town. It reminds you of a cross between the west of New Mexico and the west of California blending together there. It was a laid-back group of people. They enjoyed life. But now they are the kidnap capital of the United States. And it is not Americans kidnapping Americans, it is illegal people coming across our border and starting a big business of kidnapping people. They kidnap them and hold them for ransom, and if they don't get the ransom on time, they send them a hand or an arm, and ultimately maybe a head of their loved one to let them know that they didn't pay the money, and that is what happened to their loved one. We don't live with that kind of horror in this country, but there it is right there in Phoenix, Arizona. And that means that this lawlessness that exists on the border of this country, the southern border of this country, is bleeding over into the United States. We have got to do something about it. So the Arizona folks, they wrote themselves a law. And they basically said, they basically defined some stuff that Federal officers have had the ability to do for a long time. And they talked about the fact that if Washington is not going to do something, we are going to do something to try to find out who these people are who are coming across our border illegally. We have international people talking about us. We have the United Nations talking about a law in Arizona. Well, I want to throw something out, and I see the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is here. And I am happy to have my colleague and classmate to join me tonight. It pleases me to no end, but I want to start off this conversation by pointing out something. Mr. Lamar Smith, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, told to a group of us last week, a statistic that he produced, which is very eye opening. We are criticized by the United Nations. We are criticized by China. We are being criticized by Russia. We are being criticized by EU countries over there about our horrible immigration policy. Over the past year, we have brought in legally through the legal process in this country over 1 million immigrants. By the way, that number and more has been going on for just about as far as you can look back in time and see in this country. More than 1 million came into this country last year. You say, why do I mention that? What is the big deal about that number? I have news for you, my colleagues, here it is: That number equals more immigration than all the rest of the world combined. So these people that are criticizing the United States and our citizens, who are acting like we should look to some others as example, there are no other great examples of people who welcome immigrants but the United States because the United States by itself welcomes more than all the rest of the world put together. Now, that ought to make us stop looking at ourselves as evil people. We, through a legal process, bring in more immigrants to our country and welcome them to be law-abiding citizens and come here and help make our country what it's always been, the great melting pot of America; and we do it legally. And they wait their turn. They get in line. They fill out the paperwork. They pay the fees. They do all that it takes to get here legally, and they are legal immigrants, and there are more of them than all the rest of the world combined has in their countries, added together. With that as our premise, that we are not evil people, we are people who care about immigrants, I'd like to yield such time as my friend, Rob Bishop from Utah, would like to spend in discussing this matter.

Mr. CARTER. Just real quickly, we have this issue with the Arizona law. And I think everyone says that the Arizona law really is an outcry from Arizonans saying: if you are not going to do it, we are all going to get involved. But maybe the administration is setting a policy or a mindset here that is causing some of these things, because public opinion versus the opinion of our Speaker and our President seem to go in opposite directions. Public opinion, and I believe that after they heard what you said tonight, they would even say it louder, they would say: my Lord, if we are not enforcing our borders and all this horrible stuff is happening down there, somebody has got to. And I don't blame Arizona for saying we want to have the right to ask questions. So look at these polls: 51 percent, Gallup 59 approved; McClatchy Newspaper 61 approved; Fox News 61 approve. And yet President Obama; Attorney General Eric Holder; the Secretary of State, Posner; and the Department spokeswoman, P.J. Crowley, all seem to take the position that this is some horrible infringement upon goodness and mercy and the Constitution of the United States. Well, maybe we have got to get our minds set straight. We have got to start realizing that our job as Members of this Congress, this whole body, we take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. And in that Constitution, it tells us one of our responsibilities is to defend our Nation against all enemies. These are enemies of our country. If you don't believe it, I will be glad to take you down to places in Texas where the abuse of the drugs that are killing our children are clear to be seen on the streets, and you tell me if that's not an attack on our country for those drugs to come pouring in here. And you tell me the rapes are not an attack. Maybe it is happening to poor innocent people from foreign lands getting smuggled in here, but the rapes are taking place in the United States; and that aggravated sexual assault is taking place on those hundreds of women. That is a serious felony offense in every jurisdiction in this country. And we know it is going on, and we are using regulations to hold the hands of those who would protect those innocents. It drives you nuts to listen to this stuff.

Mr. CARTER. Here's another thing. We're talking about the rural areas, which, you know, one time we were having a hearing in Homeland Security; we were talking about helicopters, and we were talking about drones. And many people were asking about it. So I asked them, Okay, Now, there's at least some people that--we had Duncan Hunter at that time who was saying we not only needed a double fence for the entire border, but we needed a high-speed highway in between it so that the Border Patrol could respond quickly. And so I asked this guy about these helicopters. I said, Okay, what do you use these helicopters for? He said Well, we go out and we spot these large groups of immigrants that are crossing in Arizona and New Mexico and some in California. I said, Oh, so if our electronic equipment gives you a signal that there's something there, you go out there and you look at them from your helicopter and you swoop down. No, no, no. We don't swoop down. We check to see if they have adequate water and food supplies. And if they don't, we drop them water and food supplies so they don't die in the desert. Well, that's very compassionate. But now I hear from my friend in Rock Springs who was talking about sitting on his back porch of his ranch looking down into sort of a drawdown behind his place, and his wife said, Look there. That looks like 20 illegals crossing our property. Get in the truck and go down and run them off. And he said, Mama, wait a minute. And he picked up his binoculars and looked, and he saw at least the two at the front of that line of folks had automatic weapons over their shoulder, and the two at the end of the line had automatic weapons over their shoulder. And all of them had large backpacks on their back, obviously carrying drugs. And he said, Mama, you don't shoo those people off. They'll kill you. We'll call the Border Patrol. Hopefully they will do something about it. He called them. They didn't get there. They tried but they didn't get there. They were too far away. But here's something from CNN. This was May 18, 2010. Tuesday, May 18. That's pretty current. Twenty-five people have been killed over this weekend in drug-related violence in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez. Among those slain were 30 Federal police personnel, including three officers who had been engaged in controlling the ever- increasing spate of violence in the north Mexican City. Ciudad Juarez in Tijuana state is now the world's murder capital with near a thousand murders occurring since January 2010. This city lying close to the border with Texas of the United States has witnessed a surge of violence in recent times over control of the key drug smuggling routes to the U.S. between rival gangs of Sinaloa and Juarez cartels. That's a clip out of the newspaper. That's day before yesterday, right? Or today. That's yesterday. Yeah. No, it's today. That's today. That's out of today's newspaper. But that's about this last weekend. Now, we can't stand still and let this happen on our border. We are sending soldiers into harm's way in places around the world to stop violence and 23,000 people have died across the border in a place where, by the way, by Texas standpoint, many of us call--used to be one of the places that we dearly loved to visit. We have friends that we know of across the border. In my lifetime, I've been across that border more than a hundred times, probably 500 times. So although there were places you didn't want to go over there, there still was--they were still a sister city. People forget that El Paso- Juarez is a city of I think almost 3 million people. It's a huge metropolitan area. That's a big city over there across the border. And look at the violence that took place this weekend. We see the shows on television with the gangs shooting at each other. But they are happening across the border from major cities like El Paso. I yield back.

Mr. CARTER. If the gentleman would yield for a moment. Question: When America retains or takes public land, aren't we as a body of Americans stewards of that land for this Nation? Isn't it our job to take care of the property that the Federal Government has? Isn't that the job of the Interior Department, to be a good steward of that land, to make sure that land thrives and it is safe and it is a part of the body politic of the whole country's ownership? Now, how can they possible think that it is for the well-being of the American populace to have our land that we own as a body politic full of drug dealers, rapists, and prostitute smugglers? Why in the world won't they open the roads up to our law enforcement to go in there and stop this?

Mr. CARTER. And to yield to another question: Isn't it a fact that the kind of people that they are letting in there without any law enforcement being able to stop them are not what you would call good citizens for taking care of the wilderness nor good citizens for protecting endangered species? Look at that picture you are holding up there: bottles, cans, clothing. It looks like the city dump outside of the city here. Now, is that protecting our wilderness?

Mr. CARTER. I think common sense is more in short supply in this place than any place else on Earth. If we had more common sense that makes sense, and you know you mentioned something that--I don't like to use shock value when talking to the American citizens but they ought to know when we say lawlessness on the border, you mentioned something that is a horrible thing. The rape trees. Now, with all of your imagination just think about this. These are like monuments to women who have been brought across the border from the other side of the border, and then the people who brought them rape them before they move on, and they hang their undergarments on the tree as a monument to that rape. And our folks who patrol the border call those ``rape trees.'' Now, if that doesn't get your attention about lawlessness, I don't know what's going to. But when I learned about that, you know--and then I talked to a man from Rock Springs--which is a pretty darned good ways from the border in Texas--and the interesting thing is, if you look at that map that Mr. Bishop laid up there, you didn't see any Federal lands in Texas. Texas is the only State that entered the Union retaining its public lands. But it even makes for more problems for us, too, because all of the land along the Rio Grande River in Texas belongs to Texans--ranchers and farmers and so forth. And we start dealing with barriers. That even creates a bigger problem in some ways by--because these folks, it's their private land and you have to deal with them. So whatever you do, the issues of our law, they stay in the way. But putting up barriers to interfere with the enforcement of the law I think is aiding and abetting criminal activity. But then I wouldn't mind taking it to a jury. I think it would be an interesting argument. But the stories that you just related to me--John Culberson, also a Member from Texas, related that he had seen in New Mexico and Arizona lookout posts that are established on the Indian reservations and on the public lands where they sit up there and look for the Border Patrol so they can radio back and bring people across at various areas. It's like they own that. It's like that's their ranchero. That's their place on the border. We are having our country invaded. And it's bad enough to talk about people coming over, all of these poor people coming over to get a job. True. Absolutely. Some great folks coming over trying to get a job. But we could do better. We could figure out a way to get them over here without this lawlessness on the border, because if you're not going to defend your country, then what good are you? What good is this place if we're not going to defend our country? And your description--in our land. They are invading our land that belongs to the United States of America. My Lord. We ought to be willing to defend that land. I yield back to my friend

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Charly Skaggs upon his retirement from Williamson County Juvenile Services after 32 years of service. Charly served 24 of those years as the chief probation officer. In the beginning of Charly's career there were only seven employees in the juvenile services department and the county had just broken ground on a ten-bed secure detention facility. Williamson County grew a great deal during Charly's time of service resulting in operation of a detention center, a non-secure residential center, a juvenile justice alternative education program, a secure residential program, court services, probation services, community services, electronic monitoring and the first military model residential setting with 150 employees. Charly has spent many years traveling all over the U.S. training in the juvenile services field, as well as serving as the past president of the National and Texas Juvenile Detention Associations. I had the pleasure of working with Charly when I sat on the Bench as District Judge of Williamson County. It is an honor to congratulate my friend on his retirement and I wish him all the best.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Mrs. Marcia Hilsabeck upon her retirement from Round Rock High School after 43 years of service. Marcia served all but the first two years of her career in the English Department and has led the English Department since 1994. Throughout the years of her teaching career, she has been honored as Teacher of the Year and Round Rock Local Legend. When Marcia first began teaching at Round Rock High School in 1967, there were 368 students in grades nine through twelve, today there are ten times that many students. Times have changed since Marcia first began her teaching career, but her dedication and love for education has not. She has been called the ultimate teacher by colleagues and generations of students fondly remember and recognize the impact she made on their lives. Her commitment to education is extraordinary and it is with great pride I honor Marcia's career today as I wish her all the best for her retirement years.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Gregory E. Pope, United States Corps of Engineers Operations Manager, on his retirement after 34 years of dedicated service. Greg has been a true asset to the Corps for decades and a leader in Texas District 31. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with Greg on many projects over the last several years including the re-opening of several parks on Lake Belton after severe flooding. He has been a valuable resource and I admire his knowledge and professionalism. I appreciate Greg's commitment to the community, TX-31 and the U.S. Corps. I would like to thank Greg for his leadership and service as well as congratulate him and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. CARTER

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

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi took the gavel of this House in January of 2007, and she made a promise to this House and this Nation that the new Democrat administration of this House would be the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history, and that she would drain the swamp. And she said that in reference to what they called the ``culture of corruption'' in the previous Congress. Barack Obama said, when he became President of the United States, that he would put an end to the standards of one standard for powerful people and one for ordinary folks. Tonight I'm asking the question, how's that swamp draining coming along, Madam Speaker? Because the way I see it, and the way we see it in the newspapers and on television and other sources these days, is that we seem to be up to our eyeballs in alligators in this swamp. And this swamp seems to be oozing across the whole country. So how are we coming on draining that swamp, Madam Speaker? That's the kind of question that we think Members of this House ought to be asking. And I ask my colleagues, how do you think we're coming in draining this swamp? Because it certainly seems like there's an awful lot of strange animals still wandering around this swamp, and it certainly seems to be spreading from coast to coast. And we need to ask that question over and over. You know, I take the position, and I want to say it right now so it's very clear, accusations are just accusations. Until those accusations are resolved by a competent finder of fact that will decide whether or not what is alleged is true, and whether it be under the ethics rules or whether it be under the laws of the courts of this land, until a court has found, made a judgment, or until the Ethics Committee of this House has made a judgment, they're still allegations. But these allegations are part of what's swimming around in this swamp. And that's why we need to ask, Madam Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, how you coming on draining that swamp? So let's look at some of these things, and let's just see what we've got. But first let's go back to what the President said. February 3 of 2009 President Barack Obama, on CNN said, I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics. I don't want to send the message to the American people that there are two sets of standards, one for the powerful people and one for the ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes. I think that was a very noble statement by the President of the United States. Now, the question is, how are we doing under the Barack Obama administration on making sure there's not one set of standards for the powerful and another for the ordinary citizens? Another visual here. The Speaker of our House says, This leadership team will create the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history. This was made by Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi of California in a press release of November 16, 2006, after the Democrats had won the majority in the House of Representatives. And let's remember that since January 1, 2007, the Democrats have been in charge and in the majority in this House of Representatives. So, what am I talking about? Well--and I'm making this very clear because I do not want to treat people unfairly--these are allegations, some of them made in the press, some of them made in complaints to the Ethics Committee and some of them being at least looked at by police and FBI and others. All of this is stated in newspaper articles which we'll discuss. And that's just what they are, they're allegations. Nobody's guilty in this country. We still have the rule of law, and we still believe that you have to be proved guilty. And if it's in a court, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. And I will defend that for as long as I live. But the reputation of this Congress was what the Speaker of the House was speaking to when she said she wanted to drain the swamp. She was accusing the Republican Party of having a swamp full of evil alligators that had broken rules and laws, and that she was going to clean them up and give us the most ethical, the most honest, and the most open Congress in history. No more closed deals. No more special bargains. It was going to be out in the open, honest and ethical. And then we have these questions that come up. So let's just give a quick outline, and then we'll go into some details. Under Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, we could arguably say that we have had allegations of corruption that equal the allegations in the famous Tea Pot Dome scandal. Their latest scandal is Eric Massa, a Representative who has now resigned from this Congress. But it goes on to others. There are violations that are still unaddressed by Charlie Rangel, allegations of Tim Geithner and tax cheating. The list goes on to Alan Mollohan, Maxine Waters, Pete Visclosky, John Conyers, the czars, the violation of Jefferson's Rules of Order in this House and closed door deals and conferences and bills that are brought without a chance to read them. That's not open. And some would argue, that's not ethical. But let's look. First let's go back to what the President said: we're not going to treat anybody differently because of who they are and how powerful they are. Now, I'm sure he was probably talking about in one way some of this Wall Street stuff that he's talking about now. But you know what? There's an awful lot of people would say that the folks that sit in these chairs out here every day, as far as the government, which, right now is just about to be in control of over 50 percent of commerce in this country by owning an automobile company, by running the banks, by running Wall Street, by putting together a health care plan that covers everybody and mandates everything in the world for everybody in this country, and controls the health care system of this country, that these people that sit in these chairs are pretty darn powerful. Some would argue they may be on the verge of being the most powerful people in this country, especially those in positions of power, like the leadership of this House and those who are chairmen of committees. So let's just look at one--and I know some people are tired of hearing me talk about this--but Mr. Rangel has been under investigation now for at least 18 months that I can remember, because I've been talking about it that long. And it's actually longer than that. And one of the things that we brought up and we talked about is the fact that, as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, he was treated differently than the ordinary person would be if they had the same kind of tax problems that he indicated to this House, from that podium right there that he had. And yet he was treated differently. And he was the most powerful person on the Ways and Means Committee. He admitted to us underreporting income and assets for 2007 by more than half, including a failure to report his income from his Caribbean resort property again. And he'd already told us he didn't do it once. Underreporting income and assets by Rangel's aides, Rangel's lease of a multi-rent-controlled apartment in Harlem, Rangel's use of a House parking spot for long-term storage of his Mercedes, failure to report and pay taxes on rental income on his resort villa in the Dominican Republic, alleged quid pro quo trading legislative action in exchange for donations to the center named for Rangel at the City College of New York, gift rule violation on trips to the Caribbean sponsored by the Carib News Foundation in 2007 and 2008. And these are the items that are currently under investigation and have been for 18 months by the Ethics Committee of this House. I have asked over and over and over the Ethics Committee, please, please resolve these issues one way or the other. But as I said, these are allegations. But you know what? That's why the swamp water is rising. And guess what? The American public isn't treated the same way Mr. Rangel is on their tax violations. They don't get to pay the back taxes with no penalties and interest, as Mr. Rangel did. So that's one of those things that the President promised us wasn't going to happen, but it did. So that's one we ought to have to think about. The President promised one thing; we got another. Nancy Pelosi promised ethical, honest. Some of those things don't look ethical, and they don't look honest. Now, the President of the United States sent to the Senate, and it was confirmed by the Senate, the appointment of Secretary of Treasury Geithner. And certainly, if you're talking about the financial world of this country, the Treasurer of the United States is certainly one of those people that the President was talking about, one of those people who are powerful people because he's in charge of basically the finances of this country, and certainly in charge of the value of our money, the issuance of our money, the national debt. All those things are his to take care of, to make sure where we are going, to report to us, to speak with other countries about the financial problems and financial solutions of the world. He is the spokesman for our economy. And yet by his own admission, The Wall Street Journal says, ``The Fox Watching the Henhouse: Tim Geithner's Tax History.'' He didn't pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years. The IRS audited Geithner in 2003 and 2004, his taxes, finding he owed taxes and interest totaling $17,230. The IRS waived the penalties. If you know anybody out there that has had to deal with the IRS in this country, ask them if they failed to pay $17,230 if penalties were waived on them. In fact, if you didn't pay your taxes and you got a permissible extension of your taxes from April 15th, which passed just recently, when you get ready to pay them in August, or if you don't pay in August, you get another extension in October, take a look and see if the IRS is going to waive the penalties for you failing to pay those things on April 15th. I will tell you I don't think they will. So could it be that Mr. Geithner was given this privilege because he was one of those powerful that the President of the United States told us would no longer be treated differently than the ordinary people in this country? I think that's a question we have to as a House ask ourselves. Are we really treating the powerful the same as we do the ordinary folks? I certainly think we need to resolve this. And I think it's something we need to be seriously considering. And by the way, I think the water in the swamp is rising. He used his child's time at an overnight camp in 2001, 2004, and 2005 for tax deductions. Sleep-away camps don't qualify, according to the IRS. He recently filed $4,334 in additional taxes and $1,232 in interest for infractions including a retirement plan early withdrawal penalty, an improper small business deduction, and the expensing of utility costs that were for personal use. The Treasury Secretary, by the way, Mr. Geithner, is the overseer of the IRS, the same IRS that waived the penalties that ordinary Americans would pay for failure to pay their taxes. I think we have a right to ask the question, Is this what the President meant when he said we are not going to treat people that are powerful differently than the ordinary people of this country? I think that point is one we need to continue to ask. I think we are continuing to ask that. But the water in the swamp keeps rising. And what happened to the Speaker of the House who told us she was going to have the most honest, open, and ethical Congress and drain the swamp? Well, the swamp seems to keep filling up and the alligators are still swimming around. One of the things that I think we at least ought to know about what's going on in this country is that we have created more czars to be special people with special salaries to do special things for this government than the entire history of Russia had czars. So there is a bill out there to sunset all these czars by Steve Scalise. And this would be the kind of thing that would be drained in the swamp, because we created people to do the same job that we have Cabinet Secretaries doing. To me that's very, very bizarre. If you have a Secretary of Agriculture and an agriculture czar, what is the agriculture czar supposed to do? And we have got so many that I have lost count. It is somewhere in the 30s, I think now, of czars that we have. A czar is defined as someone who heads a task force or council and is appointed by the President without the consent of the Senate, excepted from the competitive service, and does not have an existing removal date. In other words, he is there at the will of the President. Appropriated funds can't be used to pay for salaries and expenses of task forces or councils established by the President and headed by the czar. That's what this bill says. In other words, it's trying to put a curtailment on this czar program. Now, why would I bring the czar program out as we are looking at the swamp? Well, we are creating positions of power and paying big salaries to these positions of power to duplicate the duties and responsibilities of Cabinet members of the President's Cabinet, and you have to ask the question why? Who are these people? Is this a payback? Is this treating the powerful different than the ordinary? Is this open, honest, and ethical? I don't know. I don't know. But the question needs to be asked why do we have to have so many czars? I defy anybody, without getting some kind of reference paper to look at, to give a list of these powerful jobs that have been created in this Congress by--I defy anybody in this Congress to give me a list off the top of their head. If they can name two they are doing better than I can. But these folks have top salaries, they have large staffs, they have big budgets, and they are doing who knows what? But at least we know they must be promoting the agenda of the President of the United States, because he is the only one who appointed them, he is the only one who approved them, because they are not subject to approval by the Senate, as Cabinet members are. And he is the only one that seems to be able to take them out. So they must be doing his agenda. Now, the question is, is that open? Could be honest. I don't know. Is it ethical? I think we have the right to know. When we have that many people doing that, I think it's a right. We as American citizens have a right to ask, who are these people? And we have actually had some articles about some of them being community organizers and some of them having very radical positions. Some of them actually resigned before they became a czar because their radical behavior was pointed out in the press. And it's not open, it might not be honest, and it might not be ethical. We ought to be worried about the czars. Now, I brought up to start off with Eric Massa. That thing hit this town like a storm, just as, a while back during the Republican administration the Mark Foley incident, where he made some statements to some young pages that were considered inappropriate. He resigned. He left the Congress. And the question was raised what did the leadership of the Republican House know about that incident and when did they know it? And these were questions that were asked of the Republican Speaker of the House and asked of the majority leader and others. I think there is a question that needs to be asked. The minority leader of this House, John Boehner, has asked it. The questions are being asked in several committees I understand. What did Speaker Pelosi know about Eric Massa? Now, those of you that don't know the story of Eric Massa, I am not going to tell it. But I am going to read to you a thing from the New York Daily News. It's an article, ``FBI joins in Massa probe of sexual harassment, hush money and coverups.'' This was written April 22, 2010. ``The FBI has joined the mushrooming investigations of sexual harassment, hush money and coverups allegedly involving former upstate Representative Eric Massa, Democrat from New York, and his male staffers. The bureau's entry into the case followed the announcement by the House Ethics Committee yesterday it's conducting its own investigation of how the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, and others handled complaints against Massa. Massa's alleged ``tickling,'' groping, and raucous behavior at a gay bar with young staffers was ``offensive, inappropriate, and created a hostile work environment,'' the Ethics Committee said in a statement. In the chaos in Massa's office, ``moneys or other payments may have been misappropriated or otherwise fraudulently or improperly distributed or received,'' the committee said. Massa resigned last month as the charges escalated. He maintained he was a ``salty guy'' whose gruff language and behavior may have been misjudged by his staff. The case entered a new phase last week when Joe Racalto, Massa's former chief of staff, disclosed he had filed a sexual harassment complaint against Massa. Racalto also said he received a $40,000 check from Massa's campaign fund shortly before Massa resigned. Through his lawyer, Massa said he did not authorize the $40,000 payment, alleging forgery might be involved.'' Is that what you meant by end the swamp, Madam Speaker? That seems to be very similar to what you were talking about when you made the statement it was time for you and the Democratic majority to start draining the swamp. Well, as recently as April 22, 2010, at 4 o'clock-- this was filed at 4 o'clock in the morning, a newspaper had sent out a news report about something that seemed to be a pretty nasty part of the swamp. So let's look at--we have talked about Geithner, treated differently. And you know what, didn't pay his taxes, and he is the head tax man. Rangel, the head of the head tax committee didn't pay his taxes, didn't pay his penalties and interest, and still has other things to answer for which haven't been answered for. Sounds like that's got the water rising in the swamp also. And remember, we said we were going to start draining this swamp back in January of 2007, and the Rangel investigation has gone on since 2008 and no end is in sight. And the Ethics Committee, although it has an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on it, is chaired by the majority party, the Democratic Party. And so it's the Democrats' job to move that Ethics Committee along and dissolve and start draining at least that part of the swamp. These things are difficult to talk about. They are allegations. And I am going to say it again and again and again, we are blessed by our Constitution of the United States and by the attitude of the American people that allegations are just allegations. They are alleging something happened, but it has to be proven. And if it's under the ethics rules, it has to be proven to the satisfaction of the Ethics Committee by the burdens of proof that they set forth. If it's set out in a court of law and it involves criminal behavior, it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If it involves civil responsibility, I would argue that there are a couple of means by it, but the most typical is by a preponderance of the evidence, the greater weight and degree of the evidence that proves such a matter. But there is a burden of proof. So when you allege something against somebody, whether you be a newspaperman or a Member of Congress like me, when you step up and say these things they should be taken just as it is. And I believe that's why I want to continue to clarify. But when you stand up before the House and you accuse others and you say they've created a foul, stinking swamp that needs to be drained and you will heroically drain that swamp, then adding animals, plant life, and water to that swamp and raising the level to where it spreads coast to coast is certainly not draining the swamp, and we should at least be able to discuss that matter in this House of Representatives. That is what I am talking about. Some of these things are very difficult to talk about, and that's why I want to repeat again and again, these are allegations. So to review. Pelosi's action, none, on Eric Massa. Obama and Pelosi's action, none, on Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner. The investigations of the Ethics Committee completed, none. Not one has been completed. The rest are still pending. Reading an article from the Congressional Quarterly, Waters Calls TARP Meeting for Husband's Bank. ``Watchdog groups claimed (Waters) took inappropriate action on behalf of OneUnited Bank, which received financial assistance from the Federal Government last fall. Waters--a senior member of the Financial Services Committee, which oversees banking issues--last year requested a meeting between Treasury Department officials and representatives of minority-owned banks, including OneUnited, on whose board her husband, Sydney Williams, had previously served. He also held stock in the bank.'' That's just a small article. But once again, there are more alligators in the swamp, and are we finding out, and as Nancy Pelosi promised us she would do, to have the most open, ethical, and honest Congress? There are allegations of ethical misbehavior here. What has our Speaker done? I would submit, nothing. I've certainly heard of nothing. I don't think--I would like to know if anyone knows of what's been done. But I think that's something that ought to be at least part of draining the swamp, part of the most ethical, honest, and open Congress in the history of the country. Detroit News, March 11, 2010. Representative Conyers avoids sentencing for embattled wife. Detroit News Washington Bureau, Washington. ``On a day his wife was front and center, Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, stayed in the shadows. Conyers was inside his office in the Federal courthouse Wednesday and expressed an interest in attending his wife's sentencing hearing, but advisers told him he shouldn't, sources said. Conyers, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, missed votes on the House floor for the second day in a row. Conyers' office did not issue a statement, nor did staff respond to repeated inquiries.'' Mlive.com, Everything Michigan. This is from the Internet. ``Landmark Legal Foundation files House ethics complaint against Conyers. A conservative public interest law firm on Monday filed a House ethics complaint against U.S. Rep. John Conyers over a letter he wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2007 allegedly tied to his wife, according to the Washington Times. The Landmark Legal Foundation filed the complaint, saying Conyers should respond to the allegations under oath. . . . In a 2007 letter, Conyers urged the EPA to accept a permit transfer request that would allow Greektown businessman Dimitrios Papas to resume operations at a hazardous waste injection well in Romulus. ``Consultant Sam Riddle said last month that Conyers' wife, former Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, drove him to a meeting with Papas earlier in 2007, arranged a $20,000 consulting contract for Riddle and demanded $10,000 as a finder's fee. ``Later the same year, Conyers wrote a letter to the EPA, reversing course from his stance in 2003, when he joined Rep. John Dingell in opposition to the well. In a statement issued last month to the Detroit Free Press, Conyers defended the letter on the grounds he was representing his constituents, and it is not clear whether he had any knowledge of his wife's ties to Papas. ``Monica Conyers resigned last month after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery in a separate incident involving Synagro Technologies.'' Those are allegations that are made in the State of Michigan against the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which is the committee that has oversight over the rule of law, if nothing else, but everything legal and many of the moral issues that come before this Congress. It's a very important, very important committee. And from these articles, we see that his wife has gotten in a lot of trouble for it. We need these things, these allegations resolved. We need to know if they're still in the swamp. We need to know if we're still draining the swamp. There are allegations in The Washington Post. This is pretty long. I am going to read some of it. Washington Post. ``Rep. Norm Dicks is about to go from Mr. Boeing to Mr. Spending.'' It was written May 9. That's 2 days ago. The Washington Post. ``Maybe this whole outsourcing thing has gone too far. This week, House Democrats indicated they have plans to contract out the Federal Government's spending to Boeing. Specifically, they are planning to outsource it to Mr. Boeing, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Boeing), a Washington State lawmaker who has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Boeing sources and has--by complete coincidence, of course--directed tens of billions of dollars of government business to the military contractor.'' And it's an article about the fact that Mr. Dicks is possibly going to be named as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I'm not going to go into this whole thing. It's an early allegation, and it's a question. But it's a question that, before we go any further, this part of the swamp needs to have sunlight put on it, and we see if where there's smoke, there's fire, and whether these allegations should be looked into. I think we have a duty to this House to drain the swamp. And if we're not going to drain the swamp as Nancy Pelosi promised us, then let's not make big noise about it like we're going to, and let's admit that, you know what? Arguably, these allegations and this whole list of things that are there--this is kind of a collage of things, New York Daily News, Washington Post, Congressional Quarterly, Roll Call, Weekly Standard, NPR Radio, The Hill--these are a list of things that are asking questions about the things that I have raised tonight. The real question is: Are we running the most ethical, open, and honest Congress in the history? Are we? I think that the entire--the vast majority, let's put it that way, of the American people have heard and understood the procedures that took place to pass the health care bill. The health care bill is now law. ObamaCare. And when we say ``open,'' we mean that we want things to be done out in the open, not in closed-door sessions in the Speaker's office, but out here on the floor of this House, on the floor of the committees and the subcommittees. ``Open and obvious'' means we're going to do it where you can see it. Let the sun shine in, as the song goes, and let's see what's there. And yet we look at how this gigantic takeover of at least one-sixth of our Nation's economy by the Federal Government was done behind closed doors in a massive bill that arrived at a point in time where no human being actually could have had a chance to even look at it in any detail and was shoved down the throat of this Congress and the American people. That's not open. That's not obvious. But more importantly, when you take the Chair as the Speaker of the House, and you take on the rules of this House--a man that both sides of the aisle respect in the building, Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, wrote rules, and those rules have been followed pretty well, not all the time, but pretty well by this House Greg Walden, John Culberson, and Brian Baird have offered H. Res. 554, 3-day reading rule, which, by the way, was one of the promises by the majority in this House that they would give at least 72 business hours before taking any action to allow you to read the bill. Even if the bill happened to be 2,500 pages, you ought to get 72 hours. And this House Resolution says legislation must be available to Members and the public for 72 business hours before taking action, requires the full text of the legislation and each committee report to be posted continuously on the Internet. In writing the rules of the House, Thomas Jefferson said bills should be publicly available for 3 days before voting. And Thomas Jefferson had in mind what? Open, obvious, ethical. Honest. That's what he wants us to be. One of our Founding Fathers, one of the most highly respected Founding Fathers, a writer of our Declaration of Independence, he said that every bill that came before this House, we ought to have 3 days to read it. And I'm not even sure if Jefferson, in his wildest imagination, ever envisioned that there would ever be a bill, a printed bill, that would be 2,500 pages long. But even that, I think, he intended for it to at least give somebody 72 hours to read it. And we haven't done that in this Congress. Not only on these massive bills, but on even other bills that come before the Congress. In fact, it is rare that we see any bill come before the Congress before you get your hands on it. Others will say to you, What are they complaining about? They did the same thing. Aha. That may be so, but guess what? We all promised each other we weren't going to do it that way anymore. And the Speaker made that commitment, and the majority leader made that commitment. And they promised it when they asked for the control of this House, and they campaigned on it that they would give us the time to read the bills and know what's going on and that things would be open and that sunshine would fill the room as far as knowledge that the various Members of Congress would have. And it didn't happen, and it is not happening. So once again we have to ask the Speaker, How's the swamp draining coming along? Because that was one of the swamp facts that you talked about that you were going to fix. How come it wasn't fixed? Well, yeah, it's an important agenda, sure, and maybe you don't want people arguing with you about your important agenda, but that's not what was said. That's not what was told to us when the control of this House was turned over to the Democrat Party. And what results when there's that kind of thing of trampling on House rules? Well, these backroom deals like that took place in cap- and-trade and health care, the failure to give the 3-day reading time. And what comes of it? Let's take the health care business. Right now, we have 22 States in this Union that have filed suit against the ObamaCare bill. They argue the individual mandate and the unfunded Medicare mandates are the subjects of that lawsuit, and that we have talked about before. And it's certain people being treated one way and another group of people being treated another. And we have a lawsuit that's probably going to take us all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve it, which is the proper place to go. But maybe it could have been resolved by this body if we had done what we said we would do: drain the swamp; be open, honest, and ethical; and trust each other and do our work together. Maybe we wouldn't have this problem. I don't know. I think I can make a pretty good argument that we wouldn't. I've just about ridden this horse long enough. I want to point out to you that for 18 months I have been on the floor of this House almost once a week. I've really been talking about something I think everybody ought to be really, really concerned about in this country and, that is, it is the duty and responsibility of everyone who raises their right hand and takes that oath that we take in this body to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And I took that oath as a member of the judiciary, which included, And of the State--that State being Texas. At least those people that take that oath in this room, those people have the responsibility to do what our Speaker told us we were going to do and create an open, honest, and ethical Congress. They have the responsibility to make sure the rules are followed. And winning and losing shouldn't be so important that you will override what you promised you would do and what you swore under oath you would do--or affirmed, if you didn't believe in taking an oath. I'm sure there were those here that didn't. I took an oath: So help me God. I took an oath. And so I'm asking the question, Are we willing to loosen up the glue that holds our government and our society together, the rule of law? That is, we can count on the law, we can count on the Constitution, that it will prevail against personalities that may come along and try to interfere with it, because Americans owe their sovereignty to a piece of paper, a rule of law, and not to an individual. We don't swear an oath in this body to the President of the United States or to the Speaker of the House or to the Secretary of the Senate or to anybody other than to God and to the American people and to each other that we will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, the glue that holds this society together. And when our Speaker talked about draining the swamp, she was making allegations, many of which were resolved and some of which were not resolved, especially at the time the statement was made, that needed to be addressed, because there was a stinking swamp of misbehavior she was alleging. And it hasn't been drained. Not only hasn't it been drained but it seems to be a policy that we will win at all cost. Therefore, we will not give 3 days to read. We will do things behind closed doors. And we will not be open and honest, even though we promised it. I'm going to get up here and say this until, hopefully, we change. And I will do my very best. And I have confidence that everyone in here, when reminded, will do their very best. My colleagues will be reminded--I'm hoping they'll be reminded by the few little things I have to say and I'm certainly hoping all of them on both sides of the aisle will be reminded, their consciences will be touched, and they will realize that the American people want to know what goes on in these Halls. If you don't believe that, look at the tea party people out there. They're not trying to start a revolution. They're trying to start an honest government. They want to know what's going on; what are you doing. We feel hopeless and helpless because we don't understand what is going on up there. And you promised us open, honest, ethical. Where is it? That's what we ought to be doing. That's what I'm doing up here. That's why I'm here tonight. I have the highest respect for every Member of this body. Any allegations made against any Member of this Congress should be rapidly and efficiently dealt with. And I hope these allegations will be proved unfounded. But to stand up and use campaign rhetoric about I'm going to have an open, honest, ethical Congress, I'm going to drain this nasty swamp, and then not do it and not answer for it is something I'm going to continue to talk about. When the President says powerful people are not going to be treated differently than ordinary people, and if somebody is being treated powerful or it sure looks like it, we have a duty to ask the question, Why is that going on? Why do Geithner and Rangel get treated differently than me when I don't pay my taxes or you when you don't pay your taxes or you just miss paying them on April 15 because you didn't get all your paperwork together so you got a legal extension? You still pay penalties and interests. Why don't they? These are not hard questions to answer. These are questions that I think the American people have a right to know, because the American people want that glue that holds this society together. They want the kind of country that we wrote about in our Constitution. As long as I think we've got questions to be answered, I'm going to be asking the questions. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, remember when we were told the whole point of the new health care bill was to lower health care costs and to insure all Americans? Well, the CMS, under the control of the Obama administration, estimates that the law fails on all counts. Twenty million Americans who currently can't afford health care will be forced under duress to buy a product or will face fines in IRS action. Four million Americans still will not be able to buy health insurance, and they will pay $33 billion in fines. Fourteen million will lose their employer-sponsored health care insurance. Twenty-three million Americans will still have no health care coverage in 2019. Twenty-one percent of the gross domestic product will be spent on health care after this law is implemented, which is much higher than if the Congress had done nothing. You have to wonder: When did we know all of this, and why didn't we know about it before the vote was taken?

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank may friend, regaining my time. Let me point out something that I think is interesting. In all of the flak we sometimes raise, we disagree with some of the rulings of the United States Supreme Court rulings--and I and others that I know have done that throughout my entire lifetime and had great constitutional issues that are banged around everywhere, and some of us said, What kind of craziness is that? But it's kind of interesting that Justice Brandeis, in that opinion, 9-0--that means everybody thought it was right-- pointed out that by the very nature of our Constitution and the very nature of what we created in the way of a Republic, this concept of a centralist-controlled economy, a central-controlled economy, doesn't fit what was founded in this country. We started down that path in the 1930s. And Brandeis and the Court slammed on the brakes and put a stop to it. It was very ridiculous, some of the things they did. There's the famous kosher meat case that went on and a bunch of other cases. Just ridiculous. Can you imagine the Federal Government going into your local butcher shop and telling your local butcher how he can do things? Is that the world we want? That is a centrist-controlled economy. Now, at the same time, the world was experiencing this in other places. In fact, we in our lifetime have seen the rise and collapse of central-planned economies. The National Socialist Party of Germany in the Second World War, besides losing a war, proved that a centrally controlled economy was an ineffective way of doing the economy without letting the markets work. The Soviet Union collapsed, continuing to try to keep a central-controlled economy run by the one Big Government entities that had fingers in everybody's world. It didn't work. It didn't work. The Chinese had the same thing. Even though they still claim communism, they are rapidly rushing towards capitalism because they are getting rich and prosperous for all levels in their country under the capitalist system, which they never could do with their centrally controlled economy. Why we would even think to go in that direction is beyond me. I think my colleagues think that is the solution to our problems. I do not think so. I think our Founding Fathers intended for us to have things both at the local, at the city, the State, the national level. I think they had a concept of the small family all the way up to the big government. They specifically wrote these little-used provisions, by the way, into the Constitution, to make it clear that there were certain things that didn't belong in the Federal Government. I'm very hopeful that that is the way that this Court at this time, in the 21st century, with all the history that has passed and all the court cases have passed, will look at this and say, If we can tell them they've got to buy what kind of health insurance, then what's next? How far will we expand this? Can the next administration, whoever it may be, say you have to buy General Motors cars because we own around 50 percent of the stock, the American people, or can it just say, you know, we've got a fledgling industry over here. You can only buy that computer or that pair of socks. But you can't buy those socks. Not until you've got five pairs of those socks. And you want the Federal Government doing that? I don't think anybody in their right mind in this country wants that to happen. But the start, the crack in the dam, the slow drip is going to be what they have proposed, which is going to be a slow drip that is going to create massive costs to this country. By the way, my friend, Mr. Burton, wasn't even talking about the cost to the States. Those are Federal costs. They imposed upon the States costs the States didn't have any say in whatsoever.

Mr. CARTER. It is. Reclaiming my time, we are joined by my good friend and colleague, classmate, a fellow Texan, Dr. Burgess, who has spent most of his life on these issues, and certainly his time in Congress. Since the day I met him, he has had the best ideas I have heard on health care, but he's been a voice crying in the wilderness. He does know what we're talking about. I'll be glad to yield to Dr. Burgess to educate us on what he sees these issues are and where this thing is going.

Mr. CARTER. Right.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for a great description of one of the reasons, when they say, you don't want to watch people make sausage or legislation is because there's no telling what goes in it. And that description of the House bill being gutted of language and changed to a health care bill, I think that's going to be a real eye-opener to the civics classes around the country as to how that thing functioned. And, you know, that's part of the nervousness that we're seeing in the American people, and they're concerned about what's going on up here. That kind of overwhelming power play is just--it's contrary to the old fair play that's deep down inside what makes Americans great. So I appreciate you describing it. I see Mr. Burton's risen again. I will yield to him.

Mr. CARTER. As he was reading from Attorney General Abbott's very well-written letter and he mentioned that particular thought, my thought was, You can let your imagination run wild if we are opening the commerce clause to existing. If existing puts you in commerce, then I think the sky is the limit. And more so, the sky is the horror, because ultimately it can be such an abusive power. And I am not pointing a finger at any administration, but there could be an administration down the road that imposes where you can live. Or one that is really interesting, because there are actually countries in this world that do this, and as we were talking about it, it popped into my head--in some European countries, Western European countries. You know, there's a misconception--I think my colleagues know this, but if not, I want to at least put my two cents worth in--a misconception that everybody has the same freedoms we've got. Wrong. Just because they've got TV shows that we like or something like that doesn't mean they've got the same kind of free society we have. The British system has the right of habeas corpus, but there are plenty of countries that don't have the right of habeas corpus. There are plenty of other rights. It's kind of interesting. In European countries, after the war, they wanted people to vote, so they made it mandatory. The government made it mandatory to vote. And if you don't vote--it's just like our health care bill--you get fined. Now, they don't have a constitution like the United States that limits the power of their government. I'm not saying it's all bad. But to me, if I was a guy who didn't want to vote, they say, Okay. Pay $50 or you've got to vote. And then what's the next step, Pay $50 or you have to vote for my party or for my leader. And where does it stop? Things that are done in good conscience when you open up the power of the Federal Government like this interpretation of the commerce clause, you can use your imagination and your knowledge of history to see how it could become, at some future time, more and more and more depriving of the liberties that we enjoy. So this is about a whole lot of stuff, and it's a whole lot of stuff that upsets you. On the issue of Medicare, I think Texas is $8 billion--isn't that right?