John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, on November 6, 2009, I was unable to be present for all rollcall votes due to the tragic event at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009. I had to travel to Fort Hood in order to be briefed on the latest findings in the shootings investigation, and to determine what steps could be taken to help comfort the wounded and the families of those who lost their lives in the tragedy. If present, I would have voted accordingly on the following rollcall votes: Roll No. 865-- ``nay''; roll No. 866--``aye''; roll No. 67--``aye''; roll No. 868-- ``aye''; roll No. 869--``nay''; roll No. 870--``aye''; roll No. 871-- ``aye''; roll No. 872--``aye''; roll No. 873--``aye''; roll No. 874-- ``aye''; and roll No. 875--``nay.''

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, I was doing a town hall meeting, and I got an email from a friend. He said, There's an old saying: control a man's purse, and you control half the man. Control a man's health, and you control all the man. We are talking about a massive change in the lives of every human being in America today. That massive change is because we've already turned over to the Federal Government most of our financial system for them to manage it, so they control our purse. This government controls the purse of America, and we have done that this year. It's there. We bailed people out. We are now voting members of financial organizations and businesses, like automobile firms. Now we want to control the American people's purse. Now we have to ask ourselves: Well, what's going to happen when we do? When we create this great system, how do we know what it's going to look like? Maybe there's a lot of talk here. I think we've got a fairly independent vision. I want to use this vision, quite frankly, but it's not fair because it's one-sided, and this document is two-sided, but this document printed in smaller font is two-sided. So here is what we have in the way of what the government needs to create for a health care plan. These are government ideas. This is the substitute: the people's ideas. It's the difference, ladies and gentlemen, between liberty and government. You know, this week, a whole lot of people came an awful long way so that they could express their opinions, and they were called radicals. Vote against this bill.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say this record job-killing bill tyrannically forces government health care on the American people.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, we have had a tragedy in my district. I am very sad to report that the latest report that I have received from Fort Hood, we have 12 Americans dead, 32 wounded. They have all been shipped to Scott & White Hospital in Temple, and they are calling for blood; so there are obviously some very serious wounds involved in the wounded. There is one shooter that has been confirmed who has since died, but he has been confirmed, and there are two other people in custody. We do not know the nature of this attack, but it is a serious attack on our warfighters. These are people at Fort Hood, most of whom have been deployed four times. So it is a real tragedy that these families are losing loved ones, and I would hope that we could have a moment of silence not only for those who have died and those who are wounded but also for their families.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this great debate, with regard to one thing, we're not keeping our eye on the ball. This is about people. In 1965, I was in northern Europe, working for a group that was laying a pipeline across northern Europe. I got my nose broken and I got sent to the doctor. They had government-run, Pelosi-style health care. I stood in line for 2\1/2\ hours to reach the doctor. I went into a nurse's room and told her my name. She passed it through another window to a doctor. I walked in the doctor's office. He said, What's wrong with you? I said, I think my nose is broken. He grabbed it and wiggled it. It started to bleed. He said, It's broken. Go through that door. I walked through that door. They handed me a prescription, and I walked out. Everybody who stood in line for 2\1/2\ hours got the same style of health care. Americans want relationships with their doctors--with their doctors. That's not the health care Americans want, but that's the Pelosi health care plan, and that's the future of health care in America if we go forward with this government-run, Pelosi-style health care. This is something Americans should stand up against.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting day for me. I was the author of this bill. I have been dealing with the gentlewomen who brought this to my attention a long time ago, and it's coming to fruition today, and I am pleased and honored. I am the author of the identical companion bill, H.R. 1182. I represent Fort Hood, Texas, which is a pretty good-sized military base in the United States, the largest. I rise in support of these military spouses for this Military Spouses Residency Relief Act. First, I want to thank everyone who has worked on this bill and worked hard to bring it to this point. Senator Burr and Senator Feinstein over on the Senate side took up this cause and shepherded it and got it through the Senate, and this past-due reform is now before us today. I would also like to thank Chairman Filner for supporting our military spouses and requesting the bill be taken up today. We greatly appreciate all the VSOs who lent their support, including the Military Officers Association of America, the Air Force Sergeants Association, AMVETS, the VFW, and the Military Spouse Business Association. Above all, I would like to thank all the military spouses who have encouraged me and who encourage their Representatives and Senators to support this bill. Finally, I would like to extend a very special thanks to Rebecca Poynter and Joanna Williamson, two entrepreneurial spouses who brought this issue to me and devoted so much of their time working with all the Members that are involved to get this bill passed. This is their baby, and they should be recognized. This small measure will provide invaluable relief to numerous military spouses who regularly uproot their entire lives to accommodate our Armed Forces. When I first heard this story, I was shocked that there was such a difference between husband and wife, the two spouses, as it relates to the benefits we give them in the military. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides for basic civil relief to our men and women of the armed services in exchange for their voluntary service. These range from relief from adjudication while deployed in combat to maintaining a single State of domicile, regardless of where their military orders may send them. This State of domicile provides an important stability for our soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors. Though their orders may send them to numerous places or numerous States, they are able to simplify their State income tax requirements, maintain their property titles, and continue to vote for their Member of Congress or their elected official back home. Without SCRA protections, the servicemembers would have to deal with all those every time they move to military installations located in different States. But spouses do have to deal with those every time they move to different States, and the spouses deal with these stresses even while faced with the challenge of moving, finding schools for children, balancing some unsupported relocation costs and the loss of a spouse's earnings as they leave the job to join the servicemember. This bill would amend the SCRA to allow military spouses to claim the same domicile as the servicemember for the purpose of State income and property taxes, as well as voter registration. Spouses could elect to stand united with their spouse, not only in support of our country, but in sharing the same State as the home base. This reform would prevent a military family from suddenly losing up to 10 percent of their income if they are called upon to relocate to a different State. This is a significant loss of income that occurs as a direct result of governmental orders. S. 475 would also provide the impetus for military spouses to put their names on deeds and titles, which would build and strengthen their own credit and further ensure their legal protection. This Veterans Day, which is coming up the 11th of this month, next week, I will ask each and every one of us to not only remember our servicemembers current and past, but take a moment to remember the military spouses who have sacrificed for and supported our soldiers. Keeping that in mind, I ask my colleagues to grant this valuable relief to our military families and to support the passage of the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, this past week, I discovered I made an error on my House financial disclosure forms for 2006 and 2007. Let's get this clear. I properly reported my stock dividends, stock sales and capital gains on my Federal tax returns, and I paid all the taxes in full. I properly reported dividend income on my stocks and the sale amount of my stocks on my House financial disclosure forms in both of those years. My error was in leaving the amount of the capital gains from the sales off the forms. I have amended both of these forms to reflect these amounts, and this has not changed my net worth one penny. There was a good editorial on this in the Roll Call this week, and I urge my fellow Members to read that editorial. To make the point on this issue of my amending my House disclosures, today, I have posted online my Federal tax returns for 2006 and 2007 so there can be no question about whether or not I paid my taxes as they were due. I do this because I intend to continue my discussion of the rule of law, and I think it's important that I do that. Yet I'm not the first one to take this step. In one of the same years that we're discussing here, then-Senator Barack Obama made the identical, same error that I made on my House disclosure forms. When he discovered that he made that omission, the same as the omissions I made, he did the same thing as I am doing. He corrected his return, and posted his Federal tax return online. I have followed the lead of the President of the United States in correcting this issue. It's now time for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to pony up. Could it be that the only reason these two hold back is that, maybe, they have something to hide? Chairman Rangel failed to pay income taxes for over a decade on his Caribbean resort property while Secretary Geithner evaded withholding taxes on income from the International Monetary Fund over multiple years. Neither of these gentlemen has paid any penalty on their violations as would a normal American taxpayer. The American public needs to know that Chairman Rangel has not again failed to report or pay Federal taxes while still not paying penalties and interest on his previous evasions, all while overseeing the IRS on behalf of the House of Representatives. They also need to know that the Secretary of the Treasury is not using his high station to avoid complying with the same IRS rules as his fellow citizens. While Secretary Geithner is asking his fellow taxpayers to pay a 20 to 50 percent penalty for failing to report and to pay income taxes on foreign deposits, he has failed to pay a nickel on multiple years of evading Federal taxes on income from the International Monetary Fund. My opinion is that anyone who fails to disclose income or to pay taxes should pay a reasonable penalty with interest. If not, our Tax Code becomes unenforceable. I also believe there is a higher law here, which is the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Secretary Geithner cannot and should not legally charge his fellow Americans penalties when he has paid none himself. That would seem to be a violation of the Constitution. Next week, I will introduce legislation dealing with the Secretary of the Treasury's failure to abide by the same laws as the rest of the country. If anyone thinks that I will slack off defending the rule of law because of a House disclosure error, they obviously have got another thing coming.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, the jury is out. The jury is looking right now, and they're wondering, What's going on with health care? We've heard all this evidence here today. Some say this; some say that. But the Democrats say, We're going to make it better, the government can do it better, and we're going to make it better. Our experience says, Wait a minute; the government doesn't do things very well. So where's the evidence that it is going to do it better? Well, hold on. It's still behind closed doors. When we come out from underneath those closed doors, we'll give you 72 hours to try to figure out what we're doing, and then we're going to make you vote. I think the American people and the jury of the American public want this thing out in the sunlight. Open the doors. Share the information. Let us know what's going on, Mr. Speaker. That's what the American people need to know. Their health care is at stake.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, on October 26, 2009, I was unable to be present for all rollcall votes due to an unexpected travel delay. If present, I would have voted accordingly on the following rollcall votes: Roll No. 814--aye; Roll No. 815--aye.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, on October 20 and 21, 2009, I was unable to be present for all rollcall votes due to an unexpected delay. If present, I would have voted accordingly on the following rollcall votes: roll No. 790--``yea''; roll No. 791--``yea''; roll No. 792-- ``yea''; roll No. 793--``yea''; roll No. 794--``yea''; roll No. 795-- ``yea''; roll No. 796--``yea'' and roll No. 797--``yea.''

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the Honorable Judy Schier Hobbs, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 4 in Williamson County, who was awarded ``Judge of the Year'' by the Texas Justice Court Judges Association (TJCJA) at their annual 2009 Education Conference in Austin, Texas. The state-wide award was presented at the Awards Luncheon during the four-day conference at the Austin Hyatt Regency on Lady Bird Lake. Texas Justice Court Judges Association is an organization representing Justice Court Judges and Clerks across the State of Texas. Judge Hobbs was awarded the ``Judge of the Year'' by the Central Texas Justices of the Peace and Constables Association earlier this year. Judge Hobbs is a lifelong resident of Precinct Four in Williamson County with a rich history of community service and was appointed and sworn to office May 15, 1982. She is a Lifetime member of the Texas Justice Court Judges Association and Central Texas Justices of the Peace and Constables Association. Judge Hobbs is married and has two children and seven grandchildren with one on the way and is a member of the Brushy Creek Baptist Church.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, it's the first day of a new work week here, and we're going to talk about restoring the rule of law. You know, we've talked about this now for about 14 weeks. It's so important that we talk about the rule of law because, quite frankly, it's what keeps our society together. It's what makes us different from anybody else and what makes America different from everybody else. And, you know, it's so simple that we take it for granted. Every American that--I'll bet you can stop anybody on the street and ask them about their rights and they all know what their rights are because they're Americans and they know they have rights. But what does it mean to have rights? Well, what it means is you have a place, you have a set of rules that establishes your rights. Now, our Constitution says certain rights are inalienable and given by your Creator. That means that all men are born with those rights. These are rights of liberty and freedom. When we had the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, that's what we were talking about. You're born with these rights. These are the rights of free men everywhere. They are inalienable. They are given by the great Creator of the universe. But everybody also knows I've got a right to free speech, I've got a right to assembly, I've got a right to a lawyer. And at all ages you can say, That's my right. That's my right. It is your right, but it becomes your right because it is enforceable, and that means that we have established a set of rules that our society operates under. And under those rules, there's a set of rules that's usually in the courts that enforce your rights, protect your rights. You know, for 20 years I tried criminal cases and other cases, and we spend most of our time, at least the judges that sit in these court cases, we spend our time making sure people's rights are protected. And we have a whole series of cases that establish rights of criminal cases. Enough of you have watched television to know a lot about--we're some of the most educated, nonlawyers in the country, the folks who watch television in the United States, because we know about Miranda rights. So we know about other rights. In other countries maybe they don't know about them. Now, why wouldn't they know about them? Because they don't have them, okay. That's it. They don't have them. And there are places on this Earth, and most of them are in Third World countries, where the rule of law does not prevail, where the average citizen doesn't have a place to go get recourse, recourse for injury that's happened to them in some form or fashion, a way to enforce a contract. There are countries full of good people, but they haven't established the rule of law to the extent that the average citizen can protect their little plot of land or protect their little business or make a deal with somebody, a contract, and then when the other side doesn't do it, enforce that contract against them because the rule of law does not prevail. For whatever reason, whether it be history or culture, whatever it is, it doesn't prevail. And so if a rich person or a wealthy group of people who wanted to go invest in that place or maybe they have a dictatorial system or they have a socialist, communist system that hasn't established a rule of law, so you can't go enforce it. You know, when Russia first opened up and started working on capitalism, I had a friend who went over there and opened a clothing store. And if he's listening, he knows who I am talking about. And he said the problem was the clothing store was as popular as it could be and everybody wanted to buy American-cut suits, they wanted to look like Americans, prosperous Americans, and he had a booming business; but unfortunately he had to pay cash for everything. He couldn't make a contract with somebody based on a bill of lading or anything like that at the time because he wasn't sure he'd be able to enforce it if he had to take it to court. He was afraid he would be out on a limb. And, quite honestly, he pointed out the Russians were doing the very best to correct that, and maybe they have. I haven't kept up with it. But it was putting a real strain on his national clothing chain that he tried to take to Russia. I hope he fixed it. I don't know. I haven't talked to him in years But the point is at the beginning of the establishment of capitalism in the former Soviet Union, in Russia, the rule of law had not come down to where you could feel comfortable with making contracts with people and believe they could be enforced. And hopefully that's been fixed. I would assume it has because I had the good pleasure to go to Russia with the Homeland Security Department and, quite frankly, they're doing pretty well over there. Looked like to me, anyway. Lots of stores and lots of prosperous-looking people. But the glue that holds society together that allows you to trade both inside and outside your country is the rule of law; there are rules and regulations that everybody is a part of, everybody is protected by and required to abide by. That's a basic premise in American society. Now, we went through a time when there was sort of a 60s rebellion against the establishment, and people would say things like, It's okay to rob from ``the man,'' but you can't rob from the little guy. And ``the man'' was the big guy. Now, nobody really defined who the big guy was. Of course, everybody knew that Coca-Cola was the big guy and Exxon was the big guy and U.S. Steel was the big guy. But was it the neighborhood grocery? Was he the big guy? Well, yeah, maybe if he was big enough, if he had more than two grocery stores. In other words, somebody was saying it was okay to break the law if somebody was really a lot better off than you were. That was insanity. That was when I was in law school. And we debated all of this in law school. And it was insanity. Because if you've got rules, you've got to abide by the rules; and if you're going to decide you don't like a rule, you're not going to abide by the rule, then you don't get the rule of law. You get anarchy. Well, the United States Congress has rules. We write those rules down. The first set of rules was written by Thomas Jefferson; and to a great extent, we still follow those rules of decorum and procedure in this House of Representatives by using Thomas Jefferson's manual on this place. Now some of it's been changed and altered. I think most of them are basic fairness, basic honesty, fair treatment for all concerned; and you're supposed to abide by those rules. We have rules that we run our government by, and those rules, they bind all of us. We have certain forms that we have to file; we have to tell people what our income is. You know, it's a funny world we live in because the American people are generally private about what they make, and it's kind of ``none of your business'' in most families to ask somebody what's your daddy--what kind of salary does your daddy make? What's your husband make? It's kind of a none-of-your-business question. Unless you're in the public eye. If you're in public life, it's everybody's business what you make. And you're required to report what you make. And if you don't report it, there are penalties for that. All of these things are some of the stuff we've been talking about. But I would argue that we have some certain subjects that are really of concern to the American people today, and we've been talking about one pretty consistently, talking about Chairman Rangel's issues. I am going to move past those for today. They may get mentioned a bit. We're going to talk about some things we talked about in the past, but I think there's a passion for these issues among the American people. Part of that passion is the man we elected President because he told us, ``I am campaigning 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.'' So the President set the standard back in February, on February 3 on CNN, 2009. That standard is going to be out there right now. And that's just right. I don't think there's any American that's going to argue with that. That's right, nobody is above the law. Nobody gets to not abide by the rule of law, because the rule of law governs our society; and that's basically what the President is saying. Nobody because of who they are, what office they hold, how much money they've got in the bank should get any other privileges above and beyond what ordinary people get. Now, we've got some issues tonight. Let me say we're going to talk about a lot of stuff. But several people last week thought we were going to talk about some of that stuff, and one of the things that they wanted to talk about was the czars. Let me be real clear up front. We're going to get to the czars in just a minute. So if anybody's listening that wanted to talk about the czars but thought we weren't talking about it, come on down. We're looking for you. Just briefly, I'm going to tell you in my opinion one of the things that most people are most upset about is this outfit called ACORN. This outfit was supposed to be a do-good public service, the group that was out there organizing communities and organizing groups so that we could have a better country. So they got really involved in working on elections last time, and here's some of the results: in Colorado they were charged with voter fraud, multiple counts, with convictions; in Florida, vote fraud, cases are pending; in Michigan, voter fraud, multiple counts with convictions; Minnesota vote fraud, multiple counts with convictions; Missouri, vote and mail fraud, identity theft, multiple counts with convictions; Nevada, vote fraud, multiple counts pending; Ohio, vote fraud, multiple counts with convictions; Pennsylvania, vote fraud, multiple counts with convictions; and the same thing in Washington State. So this good group has not been doing good things, nor have they been abiding by the rule of law. Now, we have a bill that's been introduced by Minority Leader John Boehner to defund ACORN. And what he's basically saying in this is the American people have looked at this, they've listened to this stuff that's going on, they've watched these videos of these people advising folks about child prostitution and prostitution and so forth, and they've said we've had enough of these people and we darn sure don't want to pay for them. We don't want to pay them to go out and break the law. And so the fact that they received millions of dollars in Federal funding offends people because they're not following the law. So John Boehner has proposed that no Federal contract, grant, cooperative agreement or any other form of agreement will be awarded or entered into with the organization known as ACORN. No Federal funds will be given to ACORN; no Federal employees may promote ACORN; and that ACORN includes State chapters, organizations with financial stakes in ACORN, and organizations that share directors and employees with ACORN. And I think this bill is designed to do what the American public is asking for. They're saying it's bad enough these crooks are out there; it's bad enough that they've got these cases pending against them. Of course, they're innocent until proven guilty. But they've been proven guilty here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. They have been found guilty. That's what ``conviction'' means. Now why in the world would the Federal Government want to fund people who are out committing voter fraud? And that's not just it. Why would we want to fund somebody that would advise people on how to open a house of prostitution using underage girls? Why would we want to fund those people with my taxpayer and your taxpayer dollars? I don't know. I think that Members of this House have a real question about that. I think this is a good idea and a good bill that has been offered by John Boehner. And I think that our leadership of this House, the Democrat leadership, should go forward on this bill. No matter how much these people worked to help their candidates in the last election, now they should say, whoa, wait a minute. And I presume that there was no knowledge that all this was going on. So they should be out front to stop this stuff because it's just not right. It's just not right. We talked before, and we are going to keep talking, about the fact that ACORN needs to be taken off the Federal Government's money list. Would the gentlelady from Wyoming like to join us?

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming some of my time, I'm glad you brought up the smelt in the San Joaquin Valley, because it's kind of interesting. Until this came up, most people in America probably didn't even know that the San Joaquin Valley is considered the breadbasket of this country. Now here is something interesting. It rained cats and dogs in Texas this week. We were real happy for that rain. But it meant my wife and I stayed indoors one Sunday afternoon because there wasn't anything else to do. And the movie ``Treasure of the Sierra Madre'' with Humphrey Bogart was on television. That movie was made in 1948. One of the characters in the movie was reminiscing about what they were going to do with their share of the gold. And he said, and it struck me because I have been talking to Devin Nunes so much about this tragedy that is going on in the San Joaquin Valley and that whole valley region of California, and this character says, ``I grew up in the San Joaquin Valley, an agricultural region in California, growing fruit. And the happiest days I ever had was right after the harvest, when all the workers got together and celebrated the harvest. And if I get out of here, what I want to do is get me an orchard with my money.'' It struck me, because he was talking about the fact that in 1948 that was a major production region. Now the only way that region could produce anything is with water. It is the desert. I live in the desert. If you look at an 1845 map of the United States, starting just west of Kansas, you will see a sign that says ``Great American Desert.'' It goes all the way across the Rocky Mountains to California. And Texas is within the Great American Desert. We used to joke about it when I was in school, let's drive across the Great American Desert to Dallas. But the truth is, those of us who live in a water shortage State, and Wyoming has to have underground water or it wouldn't be able to exist, we know the value of water. That's why a vast majority of our laws have something to do as far as our land with water. Taking away the water in the San Joaquin Valley is taking away a growing region, which I have evidence from the movie, that was prospering in 1948. Now how long ago was that? Sixty years ago. Now it's a shame that like you say, some laws that ought to have some exceptions don't. And we have unemployed people in literally entire counties. It's a great thing to talk about when you talk about the rule of law. That's the responsibility of legislators. That's the responsibility of Congress people. When you have a rule of law that has to be changed, you shouldn't take to the streets with guns unless you have got a tyrannical society, which is what we had when we had our revolution. You should take it to the legislature with votes and change the laws that need to be changed. Make the exceptions to make things work. And this body would decide what is best for everyone involved. That's what ought to be happening.

Mr. CARTER. Certainly.

Mr. CARTER. That's right. Reclaiming a portion of my time, Greg Walden, Culberson and Brian Baird have H. Res. 554, the 3-day reading rule, which just basically they want to put in writing and have this body adopt as a--agreed by both sides voting on, 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. And by the way, this is what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, thought was a good idea, and we're just basically redefining his rules and modernizing it a little bit with the Internet. But an interesting thing you said--we keep talking about this health care plan and I want to get on to other things, but it's an important thing, but there will be another health care debate later--and that is, it's important, but you need to look at history. I just saw on television the oldest health care plan in the world was created by Otto Von Bismarck in Germany when he united Germany, so it's the oldest one they've got. They tried all ways of funding it, but it comes down to coming out of your paycheck. And today, in Germany, 42 cents out of every dollar is taken out by the government to pay for the health care program, and they're having real problems with it in the modern world. So, there's lots to be talked about, and what you said is right; let's talk. And by the way, something else. The Senate supposedly passed something today, but they haven't got it in writing. In fact, they passed something which is a concept. I think this is a new thing. I have never quite heard anything like this. They passed a concept, which none of it has been reduced to writing the way I understand it. So it's just we've got a bunch of ideas and here's what they are, and we're not going to write them down because somebody might hold us to them. So we're just going to say we've got some great ideas and we pass it. What is that?

Mr. CARTER. I see my friend Louis Gohmert from Texas is here, and I'm going to yield to him in just a moment. But that kind of reminds me of ``Animal Farm,'' you know. They would say the rule is this, and the next day they would say, Oh, that's not what the rule is. The rule is this. Finally, they said, We're going to write them on the wall of the barn. So every night they wrote the rules on the wall, and then when they woke up the next morning, somebody had gone and erased the rules and added new rules. See, there is a reason why this body has the rules that it has, so that we and the American people can be educated about what we're doing. And concepts, that just doesn't get it done. I yield whatever time Mr. Gohmert would like to have.

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend for yielding. My good friend from Iowa is here, which brings up another rule of law issue that we've been discussing. I know he wants to talk about it, so I'm going to shift gears here. I am first going to talk about Marsha Blackburn's H. Con. Res. 185, reining in the czars. And she is proposing that the President will report on the responsibilities, qualifications, and authorities of his special assistants, known as czars. She is saying the President will certify that czars will not assert powers beyond those granted by law to a commissioned officer on the President's staff, and that Congress will hold hearings on the President's report and certification within 30 days, I assume, after the receipt of those reports. All of this is a part of multiple pieces of legislation that are out there now talking about czars. I'm going to yield to my friend, Congressman King from Iowa, as much time as he needs to consume. And I've got some kind of interesting stuff he might want to use here.

Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentlelady from Wyoming again.

Mr. CARTER. I, too, and I think Brother King also supports the auditing of the Federal Reserve. It's our money. We want to know what's going on. We want to make sure we know that things are right. We are not questioning anybody's honesty; we just want to know what's going on. We are at a point in our society right now where it's pretty desperately needed to know. I want to say one more thing: Mr. King's comment on the safe schools czar, what he is proposing is against the law, this man boy sex thing. Aggravated sexual assault of a child is the number one sexual offense in America today, at least by my experience. In 20, almost 21, years on bench, I tried--that used to be called rape. I tried lots of aggravated sexual assault cases. One out of probably a thousand was two adults and all the rest were children. Now that will tell you, at least in my experience, in an active trial court, where I was--in fact, the one adult I was sitting as a visiting judge in Travis County, it wasn't even my county. As far as I know, over all my side, where I was trying my cases, we had three courts. I only saw aggravated sexual assault of the child cases and that means it's just rampant because the victim is unable to be a very good witness sometimes because they are so young. It is a very tragic situation. It just shocks me that somebody that would be advocating those things would be put by a responsible administration in charge of safety in our schools. It is shocking. I yield to Mr. King from Iowa.

Mr. CARTER. That is right.

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend for coming down here and talking about a new subject, but a subject that is important. These czars, when we have got individual issues on the rule of law, we ought to talk about them. And I encourage all my colleagues, if they have issues about laws that they don't think are being enforced right or that they are concerned about the enforcement of, that is what this hour is about. It is about the rule of law. I thank you for bringing up that issue. I hope everyone will be very concerned about the issues that you raised today. Mr. Speaker, we thank you for the hour, and we will yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor and privilege to represent 52,000 fighting American soldiers, men and women. As we stand here on the floor of this House today, 25,000 of my soldiers that I represent from Fort Hood, Texas, are engaged in combat against an enemy of the United States. And we have lost hundreds of soldiers from Fort Hood; and we have had thousands of soldiers, men and women, injured from Fort Hood fighting for freedom and doing their duty and accomplishing their mission. I have always supported the United States military in every form or fashion, and I have always been a crusader for the authorization bill that gives those tools that gives my fighting men and women that fight for Fort Hood and fight for Texas and fight for America the opportunity to do their mission, accomplish their goals and maintain freedom. But I'm in a dilemma today, as are many, many of my colleagues because we seem to be following a code of secrecy that seems to be the new mode in this Congress. When you have something you don't want to talk about out in public, you hide it somewhere. And so we're looking today on the fact that we've added to the bill that's designed to protect the men and women of the United States military and keep them safe, we've added a criminal justice issue having to do with hate crimes. In 20 years on the bench as a criminal judge, at a felony level in Texas, I've spent an inordinate amount of time protecting the rights of the individual and protecting the rights of the defendant. I believe that we have created a justice system in America that blindly treats everyone equally. There are those who disagree, and I understand that debate. But that debate should be resolved in a one-on-one confrontation between those who think the justice system treats all fairly and those who do not, and if hate crimes is the solution to that bill, if we thought crimes are what we want in America, then I think we should go forward independently on a hate crimes bill. And I think those who support hate crimes should have the courage to come out from underneath the cover of the United States serviceman and step up and say, this is a problem in America and it needs to be solved, and here's how we solve it. Let us discuss it as men and women who represent the American people, and let us vote as our constituents would have us vote on the issue before us, hate crimes. Let's not hide that issue behind that American soldier who, at this very moment, is patrolling over in Iraq and putting his life on the line. This is an awful thing to do to the American soldier because it is taking him and having his Representative have to be in a quandary to support the military because someone is plugging in a bill that they might disagree with. I believe every victim is entitled to be protected by the law. No matter who they are or what they do, they are entitled, as a victim, to be protected under the law and their rights to be part of the criminal justice system. And I believe the sentencing process that we give to our judges and our juries it is very important that they have choices to make and they can take into consideration evidence of why the event occurred, whatever that why may be. But I think, to stick in here a controversial issue, which goes farther than just what the crime is, but what was that person thinking, or what are we going to presume that person was thinking, and if anybody ever talked to him on this subject, do we presume that they shall be considered aiding and abetting in this criminal offense. And it has issues that affect the religious freedom of the United States. These are issues that should be talked about independently. It's time for the United States Congress to address this type of thing and other things openly and forthwith, and not hide them in another bill and force people to vote against their conscience. I'm ashamed of what we're doing here today, Mr. Speaker. I think we can protect these innocents that we're talking about using the fact that our Constitution tells us to and demand that kind of behavior from our justice system without going into thought crimes, hate crimes, and infringement upon States' rights.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I offer the resolution.

Mr. CARTER. The form of the remainder of my resolution is as follows: Whereas the New York Post newspaper reported on September 2, 2009 that, ``A review of property records for the borough of Glassboro revealed at least six tax liens levied against Rangel's property during the past 16 years. Just last year, two separate liens were levied against both properties owned by Rangel.''; Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited ``high ethical standards'' in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson; Whereas Speaker Pelosi took the aforementioned action while Representative Jefferson was under investigation and the subject of considerable controversy in the news media, but prior to any indictment; Whereas in April of 2007, Republican Leader John Boehner successfully urged several Republican Members to relinquish their committee assignments after learning that each had become the subject of investigations into possible criminal activity; Whereas Leader Boehner took the aforementioned actions while the Members in question were under investigation and the subjects of widespread media controversy, but prior to any indictments; and Whereas in the wake of the most recent allegations against Representative Rangel various editorials and articles in major national newspapers criticizing Speaker Pelosi's continued refusal to remove Representative Rangel as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means after promising she would preside over ``the most ethical Congress in history'' have held the House up to public ridicule: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution and pending completion of the investigation into his affairs by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Representative Rangel is hereby removed as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.