John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And as we talk about all this, we don't want to forget what the President told us when we started out in his new administration: I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics. I don't want to send a message to the American people that there are two sets of standards, one for the powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes. And that's what this group--basically, we have taken the President's charge, and that's what we're doing every first night of the week, talking about helping the President do what he said he wanted to do and what he said he wanted to do in his administration: show that there's no special treatment for one who is a Member of Congress and one who is Secretary of the Treasury versus one who lives in east Texas or one who lives in North Carolina. They all should be treated the same, which brings us to the fox watching the henhouse.

Mr. CARTER. Obviously, it didn't include Mr. de la Torre. And Mr. de la Torre was not treated the way the Secretary of the Treasury was treated. I've been talking about others, but I want to go back to the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner. The fox is watching the henhouse. He's the guy who's supposed to be watching over our money. Let's see what he didn't do. He didn't pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years. The IRS audited Mr. Geithner in 2003 and 2004, finding he owed taxes and interest totaling $17,230. The IRS waived any penalties on Mr. Geithner. Could it have been because he was in the nomination process for Secretary of the Treasury? I think maybe so. I think so. It certainly wasn't your friend, Mr. de la Torre. In 2008, they found he owed $25,960. He used his child's time at an overnight camp in 2001, 2004, and 2005 for tax deductions. Sleep-away camps don't qualify. Recently, he 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 expense of utility costs that went for personal use. Now, this is the guy that's in charge of our IRS. He is the Treasurer of the United States. Now we talked about the Rangel rule, where Mr. Rangel didn't pay his taxes and got no penalties and no interest assessed, which I find extremely curious. Now we ought to look at the Geithner rule. Mr. Geithner had interest assessed, but no penalties. Now, what makes Mr. Geithner more special than Mr. de la Torre, which Mr. Geithner had to be found out by the IRS? Mr. De la Torre went to the IRS and said, Work with me. I have a going business. I have issues. I will get my money and I will pay you. And they said, Sorry, Charlie. Now what's wrong with this picture? What should an average person back in their living room, back home, if they're watching this, think, that we've got special treatment for a man who comes from Goldman Sachs--is that where he came from?

Mr. CARTER. He originally was in Goldman Sachs, wasn't he? I think everybody who has been Treasurer for the last, I don't know, 20 years have been Goldman Sachs people. There's something interesting there, something we ought to look into. Anyway, I want to know why Mr. de la Torre can't write ``Geithner Rule'' across his tax return and ask them to treat him this way, to let him be assessed with no penalties and interest which would drive him into the poorhouse. This is the kind of question I think the American people want to ask. I think they want to know, because the man they elected President said that he wasn't going to have a world where men and women of power got treated differently than ordinary citizens. That's why we are here. We're here fighting a good fight for what President Obama had promised this Nation would be the agenda of this administration. I think it's time to step up to the plate and start swinging because these fastballs are getting thrown at us. They are coming in high, hard and inside, and we've got to deal with them. With that, I will yield back to Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, as some people might know and some of my colleagues know, I have been appearing before this House for the leadership hour now for approximately 12 weeks, and I have been talking about this House of hypocrisy that we seem to be thriving in here as we have all of these issues that involve multiple people concerning ethical issues, and in some instances maybe even criminal issues that need to be addressed. I have raised the issue because I want to remind the leadership of this House that if we don't address these issues, we are failing in our duty as Members of Congress. As we sit here with the Democrat majority blasting Joe Wilson for a very inadvertent outcry in the House of Representatives, we seem to have forgotten what I have been talking about for the last 12 weeks which is Chairman Charlie Rangel's decades of tax evasion and ethics violations that have been raised over and over on the floor of this House. This is the ultimate of hypocrisy. So I am going to talk about it again tonight. I think it is important that we listen. It is important to also know this has not just started in the last few months. Today is a very important day. This is September 15, I believe. Close to it anyway. On September 15, 2008, the New York Times, certainly not one of the more conservative newspapers, and I don't think anyone would consider them a Republican newspaper, called for the resignation of Chairman Rangel as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee because of the allegations that he himself had pointed out to this House on the floor of this House of his failure to report certain items of value and failure to pay taxes on about $75,000 worth of income that he realized in the Dominican Republic on a vacation home that he owned there and rented out. He rightfully said he was going to correct that by paying the taxes and amending his return and that he felt bad about it, and that he had turned himself in to the Ethics Committee. Well, this turning yourself in to the Ethics Committee is almost the hypocrite's dream because you say I want you to judge me. Well, are they? They have had a year now. This was turned in to the Ethics Committee a year ago. We were promised when this new Congress started, we were promised in the fall of last year by the Speaker of this House, Nancy Pelosi, that she was sure that all of the Rangel issues would be resolved by the first or second week of January of this year. And yet they are still not resolved. The Ethics Committee's job is to be the charging body in this Congress, and they are to look into these allegations and they are to make decisions. It is our method of policing ourselves. Quite frankly, when you find your method of policing yourself has failed, and I would argue 1 year on one person is pretty close to failure, then maybe we need to come up with a new system. Maybe we need to come up with a new way. Maybe we are not capable of policing ourselves. There have been bodies like bar associations and medical associations that have historically policed up their own members; and other associations, certified public accountants, architects, and others have boards that police up their members. If they do a good job, they should be commended. And if they fail, they should be condemned. There is an old adage in the law, and having spent the vast majority of my life in the trial court in Texas, serving 20 years on a trial bench as a district judge, for 20 years prior to my coming to Congress 8 years ago, I can tell you we have an adage that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why we have things like speedy trial acts in the courts of America where a defendant can say I want this case brought to trial within a set time period because justice delayed is justice denied. That's why we have multiple terms of grand juries and we promote the grand jury process to move cases along through the system so we can deal with felony criminal cases in an opportune way so justice is not delayed. Therefore, justice is not denied. That is why we come up with alternative forms of resolution of disputes in the courthouse because our civil dockets and our family law dockets get so bogged down in numbers that justice becomes delayed; and, therefore, justice is denied. Well, I would argue that when one man stands at that microphone and for about an hour confesses his transgressions to this House, defended by the speech and debate clause of the Constitution, and states in no uncertain terms that he had made some serious errors and he was going to correct them and that he was turning it over to the Ethics Committee to get it resolved, then he has not been fairly treated by the Ethics Committee not resolving this. That is one of the things that I want to point out. I am about resolution of disputes. I am about solving these types of things that put an evil light upon this House of Representatives. We have enough trouble with the public right now. Our poll numbers are terrible. But the reality is that the history of this place calls upon us to be honorable people. We address each other as honorable people. And if you are going to be an honorable person, then we have to have a means of recourse when honor is challenged even if you challenge it yourself. And I would argue that our methods that we are using right now in the Ethics Committee are failing this House of Representatives and the leadership whose committee it is is failing this House of Representatives. This needs to be resolved. When we talked about this 1 year ago, we heard about Mr. Rangel's issues concerning the rent that he failed to report as income, and he announced to us that he was paying the taxes and would pay any penalties and interest that may be assessed against him. Later we learned that he paid taxes but he didn't pay any penalties and interest because they weren't assessed against him. That looked to me like the IRS was giving special privileges to Mr. Rangel. Why would they do that? Could it be because he is the chairman of the committee that oversees the IRS and the chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws of this Nation? It could be, but that is not right. That is not the way it ought to be. Just because 652,000 Americans decide to send one of us to Congress, does that mean that we have special rights that others in this country do not have? No, it does not. And we need to stand up and say so. We go through that same line everybody else does at the airport. We get our pockets emptied at the airport, and we go through the magnetometer just like everybody else at the airport, and we should. We are not different than anybody else in the United States. And yet I think it is totally, totally inappropriate for the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who has admitted that he failed for years to pay taxes on income that he received in the Dominican Republic, that he should not be assessed penalties and interest. For 10 years I practiced law in Texas, and I represented a lot of people who had trouble with the IRS. And I always saw when we finished it up and resolved their issues, penalties and interest. In many instances, the penalties and interest were more than the taxes. And Mr. Rangel, and I don't have exact numbers, but it was for a period of 10 or 15 years that he didn't pay on this income. Why shouldn't he pay penalties and interest? So I wrote him a letter. I said very respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you do not want to be treated any differently than any other American. I would request that you speak to the IRS and ask them to assess the appropriate penalties and interest, and that you pay them. I received no reply to that. So I introduced a bill that I call the Rangel rule. The Rangel rule says very simply if you owe penalties and interest on income that you fail to pay, when you pay that tax, write on your tax form ``exercising the Rangel rule'' and you as an American citizen will be treated the same as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. I thought that was fair. I thought that was just. It is still in the hopper. I am perfectly willing, if the leadership of this House will bring it up, to put it to a vote of my colleagues, and we might be surprised; the Rangel rule might actually become law. But we should at least have that find of fair treatment for Americans, the same kind of fair treatment we expect to have. We don't expect people in this Congress to get different treatment. That is what I have been talking about, failing to report. We have to file a report every year. It is required by law. It is like an oath, and if you violate that oath, there are consequences of violating that oath. You basically swear this is what I owe, this is what I made. This is dividend income or interest income, or whatever. We sign and swear to that. That would at least make it subject to perjury. And we file it every year. Now the complaint that we give ranges is true. You can report that I own property that is worth between $250,000 and $500,000, and you don't know exactly what end of that rainbow you are talking about, that that is the range. I didn't write the forms; those are the forms. But if you fail to report it, you are given a certain amount of time to amend it. That is fair. People can miss something. And many of the things that Mr. Rangel talked to us about when he talked on the floor of this House was the things that he didn't report. That is good. He was being honest with the American people and with the Members of this House. He turned that over to the Ethics Committee, too. I assume that he filed the amended reports. And that is sort of what we have been trying to get resolved before the Ethics Committee, is this something that should be sanctionable by the House? The Ethics Committee's job is to tell us that. We have certain sanctions that this House can have. They are set out in our rules. Those rules were given to us by Thomas Jefferson, a fairly famous scholar and famous Democrat. We have got these rules, we have these sanctions, and that committee is supposed to function to start the process. Today is the first anniversary of the process starting for that, just what I told you so far. But since then, since that time other things have come forward. In fact, recently, other things have come forward. Mr. Rangel has been found, in many newspaper articles that have been coming out about this, in a potential additional violation of underreporting income and assets in 2007 by more than half, including the failure again to report the income from his Caribbean resort property. He has aides that work for him that also failed to file these reports and failed to disclose this information. His lease of a multi rent-controlled apartment was part of the discussions that took place at that time. He is using his House parking space as a storage place for a car he didn't want to pay to be stored. His failure to report or pay taxes on his rental income in the Dominican Republic, the alleged quid pro quo trading legislation action in exchange for the new Rangel Center and College and New York College. All of these things are part of previous accusations. But now we have new properties, brand new retirement accounts, brand new investment accounts, five different investment accounts that, oops, we just discovered those. And we've just discovered rental properties over in Brooklyn, New York, and over in New Jersey, just discovered and have just come out in the newspapers. And there's article after article after article. As we celebrate this anniversary, here are some of the things that are out there. We just talked about some of them, the parking spot and all those things. There is also a trip taken by Mr. Rangel and others to the Caribbean; it was paid for by lobbyists when we had a firm promise by the Speaker and the leadership of this House, the Democrat leadership, that this was a new Congress, they were draining the swamp. Well, the swamp is not drained; in fact, we're knee deep in alligators right now. But the draining of the swamp was there would be no more lobbyists paying for trips, when we have multiple Members of this House, including Mr. Rangel, who went on a lobbyist-paid trip where they are on film thanking the individual lobbyists for their contributions to the trip. People say, why isn't this working? Why isn't this Ethics Committee working? And of course the newspapers, who like to speculate, have pointed out that three of the five Democrat members on the Ethics Committee have received major campaign donations from Charlie Rangel. We asked why Speaker Pelosi hasn't taken a hand in this and we found out 119 Democrats have been given money by Mr. Rangel for their next campaign. And so he's a source of funds for the majority party here in this House, and that may be it, but we don't know. But you know what? What this is all about is I am sick and tired of everybody being lumped together as evil people in this House. And therefore, justice delayed is justice denied, and it's time we address some of these issues. I am joined by my friend, who is a classmate of mine, from Iowa. He is one of the stars of this floor because when he speaks, he speaks from the heart. Brother King, tell us what you've got to say. I will yield you what time you may need.

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend for everything he had to say, and I agree with everything he said. I want to say something that is concerning me. It has come to my attention, through the rumors that have spread around the Halls of Congress, that some are saying this issue that I have raised about Mr. Rangel has something to do with his race. I want to make it very clear: I spent 20 years on the bench. I believe in that Lady Justice who stands there with that blindfold. I can tell you in no uncertain terms--and I will leave it up to the people in my district, and you can check with them--that I never gave a sentence to a criminal defendant based upon his race nor did I even see the color of his skin. I based it upon his behavior, and the behavior that needed punishing I certainly punished. It had nothing to do with the race of anybody. When people start accusing someone of being a racist because he raises an issue of right and wrong, there's something wrong in this House of Representatives. I bring this up now because I would hope this wouldn't happen, but if it does, I stand ready, willing and able to point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with race. By the way, Mr. Rangel isn't the only Member of this Congress whom I have spoken against and said that we needed to do something about. I just had to get that off my chest. Before this stuff starts, I want you to know the race card has nothing to do with what I'm trying to do on the floor of the House. I'm trying to see that we get justice at this level. Mr. King pointed out the fact that the Chairman of the IRS has got issues of not paying taxes. Who is going to go after him? The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has issues of all sorts, which we've talked about here. Who is going to go after him? Well, I'll tell you who can--the Justice Department. You know, when there are allegations of improper behavior, if those things rise to the level of criminal behavior, it is the duty and responsibility of the Justice Department to investigate, and I think the Justice Department should. It's supposed to be like that Lady Justice--blind to the political ramifications and going forward based only upon doing justice. That's why it is called the ``Justice Department.'' If there are issues here that people see, the Justice Department ought to do something about it. This Congress has the ability to hold hearings on these issues, and they have the ability to hold hearings on the other issues that have been talked about here tonight, and it's about time we did it. We have issues of major proportions that are being totally ignored by this House. This has become the House of hypocrisy, as Mr. King said. There are those who accused others of a culture of corruption just 2 years ago and actually, blatantly, stepped forward on the floor of this House and admitted so. Now, as the corruption is being exposed, all of a sudden, we don't hear anything more about that. It is hypocrisy. I wanted to bring that up because it's important. I've spent my lifetime trying to be like that Lady Justice--blind as to who you're dealing with. If people will think back, I have said the reason I stand here tonight is because the rule of law is the glue that underpins the very basic foundation of this Republic, and if we let the rule of law be forgotten or to be discarded and if we, as a people, are not bound together by those agreed laws we've agreed to through our legislative process and if political power or influence changes that, then we're no different than a banana republic. Therefore, nothing is more sacred to the basic premises of a Republican form of government and a democracy than that all people, no matter what their statuses, are bound by the law. Together, we just sent a man who stole in a Ponzi scheme billions of dollars from people around the world. Do you know what? It speaks to the American system. He is in prison tonight. That's the rule of law, and that's the way it's supposed to be. So, when we talk about this--and occasionally I do--I smile and have fun with the Rangel rule, but the reality is, if we surrender the rule of law, we surrender our freedom and we surrender our Nation. We just can't do it. With all the political back-and-forth that may go on on the floor of this House, I believe in my heart--and I hope in my heart--that every person who sits in these seats is about standing up for the rule of law. If they are not, they don't belong here, because the rule of law is the glue that holds our society and our Republic together. It's very simple. It's not a complex issue. It's that people, as a people, decide to govern themselves with certain rules and regulations that are required of us as citizens. It's what we promise to do by being good citizens. So we're not going to take a handgun and walk across the street and rob the grocery store, because that is disruptive, and society has decided we're not going to tolerate that. That armed robbery in Texas will put you in prison for life, and believe me, I can tell you several people who know that very fact. There's a reason we have laws: They hold our society together. It's not a law that says the poor immigrant gets the prison sentence and the rich executive does not. If they both break the law and the punishment is prison, they both ought to go to prison because that's the rule of law. So, when we have issues that affect the rule of this House and, maybe, the rules of law of this Nation--right now, I'm talking about the rules of the people's House. This is the House of the people. This is the only House of the people. Don't let those Senators fool you, okay? They're not the House of the people. This is the House of the people. If someone dies in this House or is removed or leaves office in the middle of a term, nobody appoints his replacement. It is unlawful to appoint his replacement, because the Constitution of these United States says this is the House that is elected by the people. If we have a Senator die, the States can have a rule which says the Governor--and in fact, my State has that rule. If a Senator dies or leaves office in the middle of the term, our Governor gets to appoint a replacement Senator until such time as an election is held, and most States have something along those lines, which means they're not necessarily placed in that office by the people. That's the difference. When we say this is the House of the people, this is the only House of the people. If we can't abide by our own rules when we are in charge of making those rules that govern life in America, what kind of example is that? Maybe these folks who've been in the streets for the last couple of weeks, who've been marching and yelling and fussing about Congress, have got something to fuss about; because the truth is, if we can't govern our own House, how can we be expected to govern our Nation? I have been pointing out to the Democrat leadership of this House, who has this responsibility--you know, when you're in the majority, you govern. When we were in the majority, we governed. Governing is hard. It's harder than being in the minority. In the minority, you can just vote your conscience, and that's what we all should do anyway, but in the majority, you're responsible for the results just like whoever sits in the White House is responsible for the results. Well, if we can't even figure out our own little rules and make our own little rules happen, how can we make laws that are responsible for the results that affect the people in Iowa or the people in Texas or the people in Louisiana or the people in Oregon or the people in Maine? How can the people have confidence if we can't even take care of our own business? By the way, an issue is coming up, I think, in this House. Whether you're for it or against it, Joe Wilson made an outcry the other night, and he knows and has admitted that he should not have done that. In the heat of emotion, he made an outcry while the President was speaking. Joe is a very honorable man, and he immediately apologized to the President of the United States, and he immediately, in writing, apologized to the White House and to the Vice President. Now there's another street rumor that a privileged resolution is going to be filed on the floor of this House to censure Mr. Wilson before this Congress. Of course, it's kind of interesting that the process is normally done through privileged resolutions, but there's usually some involvement by the Ethics Committee. I don't see any here. The Speaker has already said she didn't think it was appropriate to do this, and she made public statements that we should move on with health care and that he has apologized. I read that in the newspaper. Yet we're going forward on this. Then I'm crying for 12 weeks about really offensive behavior: When you pay your taxes, don't you think the guy who runs the Ways and Means Committee ought to pay his taxes? I don't see anybody jumping up, except the one time I did, and offering a privileged resolution. Mine was tabled on party lines and didn't get addressed, but I find it curious. I think Joe Wilson has apologized. He has acted like a gentleman, and I think that's where it ought to be. I agree with Speaker Pelosi's statements of 3 days ago to the press that we should move on. We'll see, but I hope we don't do that because it's just going to add, I say, to the hypocrisy of what we're talking about. I yield back to my friend from Iowa.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for that impassioned speech. We have about 5 minutes more left. So I make it very clear, I don't think I made it clear, but Roll Call newspaper reported on August 25 some of these issues with Mr. Rangel. I am going to go through them very quickly. He filed an amended return about his 2007 assets and income disclosing more than $600,000 in assets, tens of thousands of dollars in income, that he had failed to report. He failed to report, for instance, a Congressional Federal Credit Union, which is just right down the hall from us here, account of at least $250,001; an investment fund account also worth at least $250,001. He originally claimed assets of $516,000 to $1.316 million. Now he has revised it to $1.028 million to $2.5 million. And once again he failed to report the income on his Dominican Republic account. He failed to report investments that netted him between 29,000 and 81,000 in capital gains dividends and in rental income when he previously claimed between 6,000 and 17,000. He failed to report his investment in certain stocks, at least 1,001 of Yum brands; 15,001 in PepsiCo; and 250,001 in funds of Allianz Global Investors Consults Diversified Port III, half the limit, number three. He failed to report rental income, and that's on top of the multiple allegations we have been talking about. It's time for a Member that justice must be swift and justice delayed is justice denied. I ask the leadership of this House to move this process, reconcile these issues of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and let's resolve this crisis of this House so we can no longer be called the House of hypocrisy.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, I would like to point out that as I've been talking about some of these issues, just so we can make it very clear, this is not just about Chairman Rangel; I've also talked about John Murtha, Al Mollohan, Jim Moran, Pete Visclosky. All these are issues that are before the Ethics Committee or the Justice Department in some form or fashion. And so we are clearly saying we have appearances that are concerning us at every level.

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for recognizing me for this hour. For many weeks now, I've been coming to the floor with my colleagues to talk about something that, I think, is the glue that holds our Republic together, and that is the fact that the rule of law does and should prevail in this Nation. By ``the rule of law,'' it means that we are able, as a people, to establish a set of rules. Whether they be legal rules, whether they be ethical rules, whether they be rules of this House or rules of this Nation, we agree to abide by those rules, and those rules cover every element of our lives. There is the rule of contract. We don't violate criminal laws. We have laws that govern this House. We have rules that govern this House, and they're the glue that holds a society together. When we see the society having people or events that cause the glue to weaken, I think it's our duty and our responsibility as Members of this House to step up and say, hey, this is out of control; this has got to stop; the rule of law has to prevail. We have rules. We have responsibilities to keep those rules, and we as a Congress should hold each other to those rules. The Congress of the United States, like many other bodies in this country, has a set of rules, and we police ourselves up. We're not the only group of people who does this. The medical associations do it. The bar associations do it. They have, within their own memberships, committees that police up the activities of their own members. The whole purpose is so that they can correct issues before they get out of hand and, if something is out of hand, so that they can have the strength of their convictions of their associations to stand for what is right even if it's difficult and to do the right thing even if it's difficult. I've been raising issues on the floor of this House with the help of my colleagues now for about 10 weeks. Of these issues, there is one in particular with which I've had some amount of fun. Actually, I've created what's called the Rangel Rule to put a spotlight on some issues that involve the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; but over this August break, after talking about all of the things that were not resolved by our present Ethics Committee concerning Chairman Rangel, more things have arisen which raise the issues to such a level that they just absolutely cannot be ignored anymore. We have an Ethics Committee, and the American people should demand that, if we are going to set up a system where we police up this House, then we need to get behind the business of policing up this House. If it has to do with a Member who, by his own admission, has either through error or intent broken the rules of this House, then the Ethics Committee should not be deadlocked on political lines but should resolve this issue. If it's not going to be done, then the leadership of this House should take control of this House. The Speaker of the House was given the authority to be in charge of this House of Representatives, and it's her job. It's the job she signed onto. It's the responsibility she took to make sure that this House runs by certain rules. When blatant issues come forward and when newspapers across this Nation are crying out that some kind of justice needs to be done on an issue, if we're not going to do it, we're failing the very foundation of our Republic. Tonight, I am joined by my colleagues--and there may be many of them here tonight--and we're going to talk about some of these issues that involve our friend. I want to say that specifically. I have no personal animosity whatsoever against Mr. Rangel. In fact, I will tell you he has been nothing but kind to me since I've been in this House, and I've tried to be kind back, but there is an issue that needs to be resolved, and it should not be resolved just by saying on the floor of this House ``I'm sorry.'' It should be resolved by following the rules established by this House, and that's what this is all about. It is not personally aimed at anyone. It is about this institution and about the fact that the American people are more and more distrusting of this Congress for reasons just like the reason we're talking about tonight. They see things that upset them and that would upset them in their workplaces if they were to have that happen, so they ask: Why aren't the people we sent to Washington resolving this issue? What is wrong with those people? Now we need to ask those questions of ourselves. So I want to make it clear that this is not personal. This is about the rule of law and about the responsibility of this House. I am joined by my good friend Virginia Foxx, who is going to talk to us. She is from North Carolina. She is going to talk to us a little bit tonight. I yield her as much time as she may consume.

Mr. CARTER. We have a poster here that has a picture of our President. And as the gentlelady just pointed out, he points out, I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics. I don't want to send a message to the American people that there are two sets of standards, one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes. I think that's a commendable statement by the President of the United States. And the issue we are talking about here today is an issue that involves what some would argue is the most powerful chairmanship in the House of Representatives, and that is the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee. I have a brief exhibit that we can talk about of some of the allegations that concern Mr. Rangel: underreporting income and assets in 2007 by more than half, including failure to report income from his Caribbean resort property again. And those who have been listening will recall this all started because the chairman got up here on the floor of the House and told us that he had failed to report rental incomes for certain years on his Caribbean property. And he said, But I paid the taxes. And if they assess any penalties and interest, I will pay the penalties and interest. And it seemed to me very curious that after a long time of not--this is an income tax situation--and after a long time of not paying income tax on income, that no penalties and interest were assessed. And so I came up with the idea of the Rangel Rule, which said that if the chairman of the Ways and Means can be excused of his penalties and interest for failing to pay his taxes, then any other American who fails to pay theirs and goes in and pays those taxes and catches up can exercise the Rangel Rule and have the penalties and interests waived. I did that to point out what the President of the United States said he did not want to happen in this country: people of power are getting special treatment over ordinary folks. And so the purpose of it was to point out, it looked like to me that's what was going on here. So that's happened again, underreporting of income and assets by Rangel aides. Not only did the chairman not report these things, but people he is responsible for didn't report them. Lease of a--multi rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, a special lease. 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 a center named for Rangel at the City College of New York, and a gift rule violation on a trip to a Caribbean resort by the Carib News Foundation in 2007 and 2008. These are a list of some of the allegations that are going on. And there is more. There is more to be discussed. I am joined by many of my colleagues, and I am glad to see my friend Lynn Westmoreland from Georgia is here with us. I yield to my friend, Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I want to point out the timeline so everyone has a clear picture. It was almost a year ago when the chairman took this floor and told us about the first event where he had failed to pay taxes on rental income. He said he inadvertently did it. He didn't realize how he had it structured, that he was actually getting income from it, and that he was paying the taxes and that he did not expect any penalties and interest to be assessed. Now, that was a year ago. What the gentleman from Georgia was just describing was a provision that was placed in this health care bill that we are debating today and we are going to hear from the President of the United States on tomorrow, and we have been discussing for the entire August recess. We have been discussing this in town hall meetings across this country. I did 10, one of which was a TEA party. Thousands of people showed up to talk about this, and they are talking about this bill. And I think that is what really should upset you is to realize that when the chairman did not have penalties and interest assessed against him in his misfiling, he is putting a provision in the law that they, the Democrats, are trying to pass through Congress right now which would mean the ordinary person would pay double penalties and interest for failing to alert the IRS of potential questionable tax exemptions and that would bar the IRS from waiving penalties. They wouldn't be able to waive penalties, like they did for Chairman Rangel. By his own provision in the bill that he placed in there, there would be double fines under certain circumstances. I don't know what those circumstances are, but obviously if this keeps going on and on and on and on in the chairman's life, at some point in time it would seem to me that someone would say this is getting blatant. And yet the American people will have double fines, and we are seeing the chairman having no penalties and no interest being assessed against him. That is what we are talking about. That is what the President of the United States said. That is what he wanted for the American people, is that ordinary people and people who have positions of influence in this country should be treated exactly the same under the law. That is what the rule of law is all about. We establish rules, and those rules will be for everybody and there will be no exception for the prince nor the pauper. That is the way it is supposed to be. This prince of the House has actually written new rules into this bill. Another reason not to vote for this bill, as far as I am concerned, is because it doesn't treat the American people as fairly, if this is fair, as he got treated. So when we are talking about the rule of law, we are trying to tell you that this cement binds us together as a people. One of my good friends is here from the State of Georgia, another great Georgian--you know, the one thing is Georgians will answer the call, they are always there--is my friend Phil Gingrey, a physician from the great State of Georgia, one of my classmates and personal friends. I yield to him on this issue.

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend from Georgia, and reclaiming my time, I want to point out it's something that is part of this forum that we're discussing here today, because this is--I want to say something that's very important. This weekend, I had a couple of opportunities where I was interviewed by national news organizations on television. One of the questions that was asked of me was that at least there's been some inference that this is a racially motivated situation that I am in right here. And my statement--and I stick to this statement because it's the truth--this issue is not about race. This issue is about responsibility and meeting the responsibilities of this House. Mr. Rangel needs to meet his responsibilities and, quite frankly, the Speaker of the House needs to meet her responsibilities. I will refer you to the Buffalo News, ``Rangel Should Resign,'' and it tells us what we've been talking about. And it says if he won't, Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to push him. Last year he tells us he had $75,000 worth of unreported income. Now it gets worse. Rangel failed to report at least half a million dollars in assets in 2007, and his net worth is about twice of what he claimed in 2008. The odds of simple error fall to near zero when it happens twice and when both times are in your financial favor. This is Pelosi's sternest test. She should give Rangel a week to do the right thing, and then if he doesn't, she must. So this is about responsibility, and that's what we're talking about, being responsible to the rules of this House and to the rules of law. And there are two individuals here that have the opportunity to do what is right and be responsible, and that is the chairman and the Speaker.

Mr. CARTER. Yes, I will.

Mr. CARTER. I would like to recognize my good friend and fellow judge, former judge Louie Gohmert from Texas to speak and use as much time as he wishes to consume.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the City of Round Rock and its staff for their great work within our area with the Adopt-a-Unit Program. The City of Round Rock adopted soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. The city provided troops with supplies, and support over the last year during their deployment to Iraq. Jill Goodman and Eric Whitfield were key players in the cities operation to offer support to these soldiers and their families. I appreciate the work and dedication of the City of Round Rock staff and citizens and look forward to all that their efforts will bring in the future. It is an honor to recognize the City of Round Rock for its great work.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Project Name: Fort Hood Training Lands Restoration and Maintenance Account: Operation and Maintenance, Army Project Recipient and Address: Fort Hood, TX U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Hood, Bldg. 1001, Rm W321, Fort Hood, TX 75544 Amount Provided: $2,500,000 Project Description: Dedicated resources are needed to rehabilitate Fort Hood lands degraded by over 60 years of training with tanks and other military vehicles. Substantial rehabilitation can be achieved over the next five years with an integrated program that reduces soil erosion and compaction, increases desirable vegetation, supports woody vegetation management, and provides appropriate tank trails, stream- crossings, and hilltop access points for tactical vehicles. Texas AgriLife Research will work with Fort Hood Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) and other collaborators to plan, implement, execute, and verify the effectiveness of these rehabilitation efforts. Benefit to Taxpayers: The project improves training land for Fort Hood soldiers using research proven reclamation practices. The practices installed through the project have saved both time and money, while achieving training area restoration. The local economy also benefitted as local contractors were employed for soil ripping, gully plug construction, and other work. Spending Plan: $700,000 is for brush clearing and endangered species maintenance programs. Of the remainder, approximately 90% goes to Fort Hood-ITAM programs for implementation of training lands restoration validated practices and 10% goes to Texas AgriLife Research for assessment of these programs and development of new practices. Project Name: Techniques to Manage Noncompressible Hemorrhage Following Combat Injury Account: RDT&E Army Project Recipient and Address: National Trauma Institute, 16500 San Pedro Avenue, Suite 350, San Antonio, TX 78232 Amount Provided: $2,500,000 Project Description: Traumatic injury is a nationwide problem with severe consequences for our military and civilians. Noncompressible hemorrhage from injuries to the torso is the leading cause of potentially survivable deaths of American troops and its mitigation is the highest priority of U.S. military trauma surgeons and researchers. NTI's goal is to develop simple, rapid and field-expedient techniques for non-surgeons to stop truncal hemorrhage. To secure advances in this field will require additional federal funding. Currently, trauma research is significantly underfunded compared to illnesses which do not cause nearly the same level of mortality as trauma. Benefit to Taxpayers: Increasing trauma research is likely to lead to the reduction of mortality and complications from noncompressible hemorrhage and improve outcomes. This will affect soldiers as well as civilians from the 31st and every congressional district. Spending Plan: Personnel, 54%; Materials & Supplies, 8.4%; Equipment, 4.2%; Patient Care Costs, 16.8%; Administrative Costs, 16.2%. Project Name: Army National Guard M939A2 Repower Program Account: O&M Army National Guard Project Recipient and Address: Osh Kosh Corporation, 1300 N. 17th St., Suite 1040, Arlington, VA 22209 Amount Provided: $5,000,000 Project Description: Army National Guard M939A2 Repower Program. Due to the age of the M939 vehicle fleet, a lack of a support program for major sub-assemblies, and parts obsolescence, the M939A2 Repower program is a critical program to maintain the M939 series 5-ton trucks the U.S. Army will have in its inventory until 2035. Benefit to Taxpayers: The M939 series vehicles are fielded in all 54 states and territories and are used extensively in Homeland Security, disaster relief, emergency response, and training missions. This program benefits Central Texas (Killeen/Ft. Hood area) from a work force and supplier perspective. Approximately 48 production employees and support staff are involved in the M939A2 Series 5-ton Repower Program in Killeen, TX. Spending Plan: $5 million to install vehicle repower kits for aging Army National Guard M939 Series 5-ton trucks utilized in homeland defense and national security missions. Approximately 90 percent of funding is for material, including engine, transmission, cooling package, electronics, and other vehicle components, with the remaining 10 percent for manufacturing labor. Project Name: High Volume Manufacturing for Thin-film Lithium Stack Battery Technologies Account: RDT&E Army Project Recipient and Address: Applied Material, 1300 N. 17th St., Suite 1040, Arlington, VA 22209 Amount Provided: $1,000,000 Project Description: The war fighter is reliant on dependable power for electronics and weapons to assure superiority in battle. The power sources must have energy available to power the electronics and weapons and be small, light and affordable. Applied Materials will develop cost effective domestic mfg. systems for next generation thin-film lithium batteries that provide a solution to these challenges that meet current and projected future DOD requirements for high power, light weight, small size and low-cost. Successful development of the proposed mfg. systems will address the DoD power source technology requirements such as energy and power density, life cycle, shelf life, discharge and charge rates, form factor, safety and cost for the needed military applications such as sensors, fuses and man wearable soldier battery devices. Benefit to Taxpayers: This project establishes in the U.S. innovative manufacturing technologies for a strategically important military and commercial field--thin-film energy storage technology. It will strengthen the competitive edge of Applied Materials and enable U.S. based companies to provide high-tech next generation domestic sources of thin film lithium batteries for military and commercial applications. Spending Plan: The total project cost is $30.5 million of which Applied Materials has requested $3.0 million from Congress. Applied Materials will match the federal contribution dollar for dollar: Personnel Salaries/Wages, $12,777,500; Travel, $660,000; Equipment, $14,165,667; Materials/Supplies, $2,904,000; Others (Shipping), $24,000; Total Direct Costs, $30,531,167. Project Name: HTS Trap Field Magnet Motor Account: RDT&E Navy Project Recipient and Address: Teco Westinghouse Motor Company, 5100 North IH 35, Round Rock, TX 78681 Amount Provided: $1,000,000 Project Description: The megawatt power on Navy future ships is estimated to be six times greater than that of existing surface combatants. The emergence of superconductor motors have the potential to make propulsion packages smaller, more powerful, more energy efficient, and quieter than their standard counterparts. The cost of superconductor motors, however, must be reduced if they are to be affordable for Navy ship applications. This development effort is for the purpose of demonstrating that bulk high temperature trapped field magnets can be used rather than wire to reduce the cost of superconducting motors by one third, produce twice the power, and increase safety of the crew and ship by being able to turn the magnets off during fault conditions. Benefit to Taxpayers: Will help sustain the 391 jobs at TECO- Westinghouse in Round Rock and create 4 new jobs. Once the program moves from development to production phase, it would have direct impact on 40 to 50 jobs. The benefit to the U.S. Navy is that it would have a powerful, affordable, reliable, and safe motor to support advanced weapon systems and radars on future ships in meeting the Navy's requirements stated in its Next Generation Integrated Power System Roadmap. Spending Plan: If fully funded, the $6 million requested in FY10 combined with the $2 million appropriated in FY09 is expected to complete the development effort. The breakout is as follows: $920,000 for Program Management and Support; $3,500,000 for engineering labor; $290,000 for manufacturing labor; $1,290,000 for Testing.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the City of Leander and its staff for their great work within the community for the Adopt-a-Unit Program. The City of Leander adopted troops from the 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Hood, Texas through the Adopt-a-Unit program. The city offered support to the troops and their families with supplies, care packages and moral support during their deployment to Iraq over the last year. I appreciate the work and dedication of the City of Leander staff and commend them for their commitment to the soldiers of the United States Army. It is an honor to recognize the City of Leander for their great work.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the Greater Leander Chamber of Commerce for its great efforts within the community and serving as a helpful resource for the Adopt-a-Unit Program in Leander. The city of Leander participated in adopting troops from the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. The Program provided soldiers and their families back home with supplies, care packages and moral support during their deployment to Iraq over the last year. I appreciate the hard work and commitment of the Greater Leander Chamber staff and look forward to what great things it will do in the future. It is an honor to recognize the Greater Leander Chamber of Commerce and its staff.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House got up and said, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That was when we were dealing with what they call the National Energy Tax. We called it cap-and-tax. But what was the reality? That particular bill passed by the Congress will result in job losses of 2.3 million to 2.7 million. It's predicted by 2035, 1.38 million manufacturing jobs will go overseas. The number of job growths created by the Democrats thus far? Zero. None. What jobs was she talking about? Her job? We don't know. But we haven't seen the jobs. Where are the jobs? And now we're looking at a health care plan which experts tell us between 4 million and 6 million more jobs will be lost and there will be no reduction in the cost to the American people. Let's get a health care plan that works and let's ask again, and again, and again, Madam Speaker, Where are the jobs?

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend for reminding us of Texas history. In reading over the list of people that have had the Franking Commission censor their language, I failed to mention Congressman Spencer Bachus, who's the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee and has had just horrendous hard times this year with all the issues of bailouts and all the things that are going on in the financial service industry. He submitted the term ``government-run health care.'' This is his exact sentence. ``Government-run health care system proposed by President Obama and his liberal allies in Congress.'' They would not allow him to say that. He was also told during the cap-and-trade--we say cap-and-tax bill, which is our description of the bill, they would not let him use the term ``cap-and-tax'' and wanted it to be climate bill. He also had his language censored. One of my colleagues made the point, said, When people start censoring your language and telling you what to say, I think that most people in America start saying, Why are you doing that? We've got free speech in this country. Those are my elected representatives. They have the right to express their opinion. Why are you not letting them have that right to express their opinion? Why can't they call something a government-run health care that you want to call a public option plan? That ought to be part of the debate. I think the American people would ask that question. I would also think they would ask the question about this chart, Why are you wanting to hide this? What's there to hide? If it creates those agencies, then it creates them. And we have asked and asked and asked to point out what agency that it says, and it's the colored agencies that are being created that aren't in the bill, and no one has yet pointed out one that's not in the bill. So why can't we show it to people? Why would a branch of this House tell Members of this House what they can and can't say to the people that elected them to come up here and speak on their behalf? I think we should be concerned about this. I think Americans should be worried. If they start telling us what we can say, when are they going to start telling you what you can say? You know, if we let it go, we are just as guilty as those who have let tyranny go in the past. We, as Americans, fought a revolution to be able to set down in black and white, on paper, our God-given rights, and that's what our Constitution says. Man is endowed with these rights by his creator, certain unalienable rights, and we define those rights by setting them down in black and white in amendments to the Constitution. In the first sentence of the First Amendment, it says that this House--this body, this government--shall not infringe on the right of free speech. I mean, it is a direct directive to this government. That means the House of Representatives of the Congress cannot interfere with the freedom of speech in this country. The Senate cannot interfere, and the executive branch, the President, and any of the agencies cannot impose upon the right of free speech in America. Yet a body created to decide how stamps are going to be spent is now telling us what we can and cannot say to the people who sent us up here. I don't think I'm blowing this out of proportion. I don't think I was when Mr. Brady was told he could not publish this initially, in any form or fashion, until it was discovered that the Internet--you know, the Internet is a great protector of American freedom because the average American can make a copy of this, and he can send it to the world on the Internet. The Franking Commission can talk all they want to. It's already out there. If you had something to hide, the fact that you had something to hide will also be out there all over the world. We feel like we have a duty and a responsibility to talk to and to communicate with the people who sent us up here to represent them. The majority party has every right, the Democrats have every right, to express their opinions on bills, to say what they think they say. We can say what we think they say, and we can describe them as we want to describe them. That's what this House is all about. We like to say this is the greatest experiment of democracy in history, the greatest experiment of self-government in history. Well, it can't be if somebody is curtailing the voice of even one of the Members of this body, if somebody is telling one Member that he can't do it. Now, if this chart were written and if every third word said, ``Elect Candidate Brady to Congress,'' the Franking Commission would have every right to do this because that would be using government money for one's own purposes toward being elected to Congress. If it said, ``Elect only Republicans to Congress,'' I agree that the Franking Commission would have every right to say that because, quite frankly, that's why they're there, to keep us from using government money for political purposes. Yet, when you're expressing your opinion and when you go to the trouble of using four researchers to dig through and to find out every agency that has been created in the new health care plan that is being proposed by this Congress and at the instruction of this President, Mr. Obama, and if these things are created, why can't you tell people about them? If I want to describe the Federal Government's public health care plan as a government-run health care plan and if I choose to describe it that way because the government is going to run it, I mean, this isn't rocket science. The government is going to run it. In fact, a whole lot of these agencies are established to help them run it. If I want to describe it that way, I've got a constitutional right to do that, and no colleague in this House and no organization set up by this House has the right to curtail the freedom of Americans, especially the Representatives of Americans, to speak their minds. It may be a little thing, but do you know what? It just takes one drop of water, and eventually the bucket is full and then the barrel is full, and then the lake is full. I didn't count these names, but I can count them. There's this list right here. Let's see, twenty-four Members of this House have had their language censored and their communications stopped because of something that they said, like ``government-run health care'' or like using the term ``Democrat majority'' in the newsletter. If this is going to happen--if you're going to tell people you can't state that the bill imposes taxes when it does impose taxes, if you're being told you can't send the letter out and that you can't communicate--I don't think you can define it any other way than as curtailing the freedom of speech in the United States. That's what's going on. I've talked in the past about the fact that, a while back, in the middle of these Special Orders when we've been talking about the rule of law and about other things, Congress has just adjourned. We have a 3-day reading rule proposed by Thomas Jefferson that has been set as the standard for this House of Representatives since the beloved Thomas Jefferson, the patron saint of the Democratic Party. Yet the 3-day rule promised by the Speaker, promised by the President and established by Thomas Jefferson hasn't applied to a single one of these bills we've had thus far, not to one, not to one of these major bills starting clear back in the fall. Not one of them has given us 3 days to read them. Yet if you'll remember, John Boehner dropped one that was about that tall--3,000 pages. He dropped it on the floor to show that we'd had 8 hours to look at it. Now, I guess it's one of these things where, if you don't step up and speak now on the little things, like making you change your language or like telling you you can't mail your letter, then at some point in time, somebody is going to tell you, I'm sorry, Congressman, your opinion is not wanted here on this floor of the House. Sit down. You can't talk at all, or I'm sorry, that party's opinion is not wanted, and you can't talk at all, or whatever, or maybe, Your opinion is not wanted, and you can't express it at all. That's not America. That's not the America that we created. That's not the America we are proud of. That's not the America we honor when we salute the flag and when we sing patriotic songs. That's not the America that we want. We were talking about the national health care plan. I really haven't gone into the merits of it. I think my colleague did a very good job of going into the merits of it. I am so concerned about the fact that they're censoring. All I said was ``government-run,'' and it's like I committed a crime. What in the world would have happened if I'd started really saying what I thought about it? I did see something on television yesterday on PBS. It was on Winston Churchill. He was kicked out of office in 1946, '47 or '48, something like that, by the Labor Party in England. He was reelected, I believe, in 1950, but don't hold me to those dates. They showed him making a speech. I won't quote it exactly, but it was close. He said, 2 years ago, we thought socialism was the solution to all of our problems. Today, we know that it's not, and, in fact, it has failed miserably. However, they passed socialized medicine in 1948, and even though Mr. Churchill came in in 1950 and said that socialism had failed, that was almost 60 years ago, they've still got socialized medicine. It failed then and it's failing now. Ronald Reagan said the hardest, closest thing to eternal life on the face of the Earth is a government program. Once it's created, you never get rid of it. So, as to the government-run health care plan, once it becomes law-- that's why they're in such a hurry to do it this week. We don't have any time. The sky is falling. We can't wait 30 more days to discuss this problem that's going to change America as we know it, that's going to completely change the way we do health care as we know it. We can't have just 30 more days to talk about it back home with our constituents. We can't kick this ball down the road. We've got to do it when it really came to the center portion of this House 2 weeks ago. Most of the committees that reported it out reported it out last week. We've been told if we don't do it by Friday, we'll keep you Saturday and Sunday. If you don't do it Saturday and Sunday, we'll keep you next week or the week after, but you're going to do it before you go home for the August recess. That's fine. I stood up here most of last August, talking in a dark Chamber because they turned off the lights and wouldn't let us talk, so we just talked in the dark. So I don't mind. I'll stay up here the whole August recess if that's what's supposed to happen. They're trying to hurry because the closest thing to eternal life seen on this Earth is a government program, and once these government programs are in place, you'll never get rid of them. That is the consequence of being in a hurry. I'll just point out that we got in a hurry on TARP, that we got in a hurry on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that we got in a hurry on the stimulus bill. We got in a hurry on cap-and-trade. We've been in a hurry on everything we've done this year, and I think everybody is seeing the results of not thinking things out and of not doing what we're supposed to be doing. I love it when somebody says we're the greatest deliberative body on Earth. Then let's deliberate. You know, I've had juries deliberate longer on an issue than we're dealing with on health care for America. I mean, I had a jury deliberate for 2 weeks. We're in the second week this week, and not one committee has marked up and reported out a bill yet. The biggest committee and arguably the most important committee, Energy and Commerce, has not sent us a completed bill. Yet we are expected to finish it this week. I had a jury deliberate, I believe it was 2 and maybe 3 weeks, close to 21 days, on a water tank and on a water system in Taylor, Texas. So this has got to be a little more critical to the American people than that. It's about freedom. It's about liberty. It's about your liberty and my liberty to rely upon. The Bill of Rights and the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights says that this Congress shall not impose upon freedom of speech in America. I thank the Speaker for his time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend from Texas for a very eloquent presentation. And it is that serious. Those of us who spend our lives in the courtroom trying to protect people's rights, as Judge Poe will tell you, we spend an inordinate amount of time making sure that all the rights of Americans who appear in the court system are protected. We in this body should spend an inordinate amount of time making sure that our rights and the rights of the American people are protected. There are others here. My good friend and classmate Mr. McCotter, who is from the great State of Michigan, has a few things to say.

Mr. CARTER. I am now going to yield such time as he may choose to consume to my good friend from the State of Iowa, Congressman King. He always has great things to say. He is a man of compassion and passion.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to sort of do a continuation of a theme that I have been discussing, but this one has gotten to the point where I'm very concerned about the seriousness of the offense. We talked about failure of certain Members of Congress to pay their taxes, failure of Members of Congress to not disclose the influence peddling that is going on. We've talked about a lot of things. Last week we talked about the rule of law and how many are trying to circumvent the rule of contract. In fact, I read today in the Wall Street Journal that the compensation czar is going to renegotiate the contracts. I assume that means strong-arm the parties to renegotiate the contracts on certain compensation packages; and however offended we may be by compensation packages, there are certain rules of contract that should be honored. That is one of the backbones of our Nation's freedom is that we have the right to make a deal and then be bound by it. But that's a different subject. Tonight I want to talk about a subject that I think that if this doesn't concern people back home, if this doesn't concern the Members of this body, then I don't really know what will. It is because the issue we are talking about here is something that is the beginning of tyranny, and it is something we should all be very concerned about, and that is when a political group starts to step on the free speech rights of others in this Nation. Now, you may feel like this is a position that I am taking that is untenable, but I am going to tell you that 652,000 people in the various districts, and most of the districts in my State have grown to a million now, send a person to Washington, D.C., to speak and to communicate with them back home about what is going on here in Washington, and they expect to hear the words and the ideas and the thoughts of their elected representative when that elected representative is communicating with them back in Washington, D.C. But recently, in fact, you started seeing some of this pop up back during what they called the cap-and-trade and we call the cap-and-tax bill, but it has gone now to where it has become rampant on this issue of health care. An organization that is designed to set rules concerning how we spend government money in communicating with our people back home--it is called the Franking Commission. It is made up of, as I understand it, and I could have the number wrong, three Republicans and three Democrats, and both are submitted a communication, say a weekly newsletter, that is sent back home or the lead-in to a telephone townhall or an e-mail back home, an instant e- mail telling people what is going on this day in Congress. And these things have to be submitted if they are being paid for by government money to the Franking Commission. The Franking Commission, in a simple way to say it, they just basically don't think you should be using the government's money for politics. But they have never in the history of the Republic taken the position you don't have the right to express your opinion on the policies that are being proposed, or that you must reword the policies to suit the language of someone else. It is almost like, I hate to say it, political correctness run amok. I want to start off by telling you what happened to me, and then I want to tell you what has happened to some of my colleagues, and I am going to be joined by some of those colleagues. It is important that you understand that I write to my folks or I communicate with my folks back home every day. One of the tools I use is called a telephone townhall. On a telephone townhall you make a recorded message that leads into the townhall, and part of the recorded message is to tell the people what you are going to be talking with them about for the next hour, so they know what the subject matter is, because it narrows the scope and we get to narrow down the things we talk about. So we made a telephone townhall recording submission to the Franking Commission in which I proposed to say the Democratic Party is offering their government-run health care program in the next 2 weeks, and this is what we are going to talk about tonight. The Franking Commission came back and told me I could not say ``government-run health care'' and I could not say ``the Democratic Party.'' I had to say the majority party is submitting its public option health care program. In other words, what they are telling me is I have to use the same language that the President of the United States uses in his speech, or that Nancy Pelosi uses when Nancy Pelosi talks about this, ``public option,'' which they have done polls to discover that ``public option'' sounds better than ``government-run health care.'' But that is their opinion. I as an American citizen and a Member of this body am entitled to express my title for that to my constituents back home, and in fact to the entire American public, to say in my opinion they are submitting their government-run health care program. And I would submit there is no other real way you can describe that if you believe the government is running it, because it says the government is running it. It is not like they are going to contract out, subcontract to insurance companies to put together a policy. No. The United States Government is going to offer a health care plan for the American public and it is going to be run by the Federal Government, the United States Government. That is the plan. That is what they are submitting in their 1,018-page health care plan, which to this point has not been completed and finally marked up, and we haven't seen the final product. And if it goes the way it has gone since we have been in Congress since January, when Mr. Obama was sworn in, this Congress will present it to us sometime between midnight and 2 in the morning of the morning before we vote on it. But getting back to the seriousness of this situation, I was taken back by what they did to me. But it is not just about me. If it was just about me, I would not be standing up here. But I felt like they were telling me what I had to say. I had to use someone else's words to describe something that I wanted to describe. But that wasn't all. My colleague Kevin Brady from Texas, and he may be here later on, we were delayed because of weather for a long time tonight, and Mr. Brady told me he would get here if he could, as fast as he could, within this hour. My friend Kevin Brady prepared this chart. And what this chart is is Mr. Brady's interpretation of all of the entities that exist or that are being created by this plan that is put together by the Democrats, and it is what stands between the consumers, that is this little body of folks right here, and the health care professionals over there, and all of this stands between them. Mr. Brady was told that he could not mail this to his constituents. He asked why, and they said it is not true. And he said, well, that is fine. Point to me one entity that is not in the bill, one, just one, and I will pull it down. No one could point to any entity that is not contained in the bill. Everything that is seen on this chart is contained in the bill. But the point of this was they were trying to curtail Mr. Brady's freedom to express himself, his freedom of speech in this body. Now, if you want to really lean and say, Oh, sure that is fair, they ought to be able to do that, well, let's look at something here that is kind of interesting. Back during the Hillary Clinton ``HillaryCare'' debate, another chart was introduced into this Congress. It is not as pretty as Mr. Brady's, because it is not in color. This chart, during the HillaryCare debate, was submitted to the Franking Commission. I don't remember the date. Maybe it is on here. Anyway, it was during the HillaryCare debate, what was that, 1993, back in 1993, by Dick Armey of Texas. It went to the Franking Commission, and the Democrats and the Republicans approved it as appropriate to communicate to constituents with. So what has changed between the nineties and the first debate about health care, which was approved by both parties, and today, 2009, which was blocked and refused by the Democrat Members of the Franking Commission? What has changed is someone is trying to tell us we don't have the right to speak our minds in the United States Congress. Now, when you get a huge majority like they have in the House, and the 60 vote majority in the Senate, maybe you feel like the mandate is so great that you have the right to circumvent the freedom of speech of the Members of Congress on the minority side. But you don't. Congressman Joe Barton used the words ``Democratic majority'' in his newsletter. The Franking Commission kicked it out and said he had to use ``congressional majority.'' But in Nancy Pelosi's newsletter in 2006 when she was in the minority, you find this statement: ``But too many here and across our Nation are paying the price for the Republican congressional majority's special interest agenda.'' So why was it okay for the now-Speaker of the House just in 2006 to use ``Republican congressional majority,'' but it is not okay for Mr. Barton to use the term ``Democrat majority?'' He has sent this back along with Ms. Pelosi's statement and is awaiting a response from the Franking Commission. Now, what is wrong with that? Well, what is wrong with that is that if you await a response from the Franking Commission, then you lose your time to communicate. You try to communicate on issues as they come up. This had to do with cap-and-trade before it passed the House. He was not allowed to use it. A Florida colleague submitted a franking review for the week of July 13th that said, This bill imposes a new payroll tax on employers who do not provide their employees with insurance. The Democrats demanded it be changed to read, In my opinion, this bill imposes a new payroll tax on employers who do not provide the employees with insurance. The problem is, it is not an opinion; it is a fact. It was pointed out to them on page 150 of their own bill. It says specifically the language that was quoted by a colleague from Florida. Mr. Ken Calvert from California pointed out that he quoted verbatim from President Obama in a speech that he made at his recent townhall meeting on health care in which he quoted this quote. When a lady asked about her elderly mother and special treatment for her elderly mother with heart troubles and receiving a pacemaker, the President, this is a direct quote from his speech, which was not allowed to be sent out and was deleted from Mr. Calvert's newsletter, it was a direct quote: ``Look, the first thing of all is to understand that we actually have some choices to make about how we want to deal with our end-of-life care. We as a culture, as a society, can start to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that you know what--maybe it isn't going to help. Maybe you are better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.'' That was a direct quote from the President at his conference, news conference, townhall, which was not allowed to go in Mr. Calvert's newsletter by the Franking Commission. There are more stories, but the following people have had censorship of their language recently: Representative Herger, Representative Lamar Smith, Representatives Lamborn, Bonner, Westmoreland, Olson, Shuster, Roskam, McCotter, Gingrey, Fleming, Boustany, Brady, Conaway, Price, Culberson, Garrett, Kline and Lee. All have been in some form or fashion censored in their freedom of speech. Folks, if they will take the freedom of speech away from your Members of Congress, when will they take it away from the press? When will they take it away from the people? When will they take it away from you and your children and the next generation of Americans that we pass this great, beloved freedom on to, the right of an American to stand up and speak his mind? Yet this party, in control of this House, is starting to interfere with the freedom of speech of American citizens who are elected by other American citizens to represent them on the floor of Congress. Well, I have talked for a long time, but I am upset about what's going on. I am joined by some of my colleagues. I yield to my friend Judge Poe from Texas for whatever time he needs.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3293, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Requesting Member: John R. Carter Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Department of Education--Elementary & Secondary Educations (includes FIE) Requesting Entity: Communities-in-Schools, Bell-Coryell Counties Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 4520 East Central Texas Expressway, Suite 106, Killeen, TX 76543 Description: $250,000 in funding for the Communities In Schools (CIS) to continue serving military children and families of Ft. Hood soldiers. As the only non-profit organization housed on school property, the professional staff of CIS is able to monitor the academics, behavior, and attendance of at-risk students. Through professional campus support addressing individual student needs, increased parental involvement, and closely supervised activities, CIS tries to promote students staying in school and graduating, thereby improving their chances of success in life. Requesting Member: John R. Carter Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Department of Education--Elementary & Secondary Educations (includes FIE) Requesting Entity: Peaceable Kingdom Retreat for Children, Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 19051 F.M. 2484, Killeen, Texas 76542- 5068 Description: $255,000 in funding for the Peaceable Kingdom Retreat for Children to offer essential and practical enrichment program skills to over 6,000 children with chronic/ terminal illnesses, and special needs. ``Having a BLAST at PKRC'' will offer these special children a way to discover their natural abilities and interests and obtain the critical life and coping skills needed to reach their full potential via three primary components: Environmental Education Awareness; Recreational Therapy; and Coping and Life Skills. Requesting Member: John R. Carter Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Department of Education--Higher Education (includes FIPSE) Requesting Entity: Texas Life-Sciences Collaboration Center Address of Requesting Entity: 111 Cooperative Way, Suite 200, Georgetown, TX 78625 Description: $245,000 in funding for the collaboration between the non-profit Texas Life-Sciences Collaboration Center and Southwestern University to establish an entrepreneur and college internship program based on commercialization of bioscience technologies. In addition, the program will also foster the immediate use of bioscience technology for translational and clinical research for regional hospital systems and medical schools. Requesting Member: John R. Carter Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Department of Education--Higher Education (includes FIPSE) Entity: Texas State University, San Marcos Address of Requesting Entity: 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Description: $1,000,000 in funding to establish the Round Rock Higher Education Center for Nursing Program. Funding is for equipment for the clinical and simulation laboratories and additional nursing faculty and staff for the simulations laboratories. The nursing school building will support an innovative curriculum with classrooms and a number of clinical practice and simulation laboratories. The project also provides for nursing faculty and healthcare practitioners to participate together in the active learning process of continuing education for health care professionals and the community. Requesting Member: John R. Carter Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: Department of Health & Human Services--Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services Requesting Entity: Temple Health and Bioscience Economic Development District Address of Requesting Entity: 938 Canyon Creek Drive, Temple, TX 76502 Description: $750,000 in funding will provide the seed money to acquire a state of the art cyclotron and related equipment for the production of radioisotopes. The radioisotopes are a critical component of expanding both clinical care and medical research in the Temple bioscience cluster. The cyclotron facility will provide resources for cutting edge medical research and support growth of the Cancer Research Institute, the Cardiovascular Research Institute and Center for Regenerative Medicine, all located in Temple.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: John R. Carter Bill: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Federal Highway Administration--Surface Transportation Priorities Requesting Entity: City of Round Rock, Texas Address of Requesting Entity: 221 East Main St, Round Rock, TX 78664 Description: $750,000 in funding for FM 1460 Roadway Improvements from the FHWA TCSP account. This project will provide for the widening of FM 1460 (North A.W. Grimes Boulevard) from north of Old Settlers Boulevard to north of University Boulevard. The project will reconstruct the existing two lane minor arterial roadway to a four lane divided major arterial roadway using current best practices in roadway design and including bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in accordance with Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) policy. Requesting Member: John R. Carter Bill: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Federal Highway Administration--Surface Transportation Priorities Requesting Entity: City of Belton, TX Address of Requesting Entity: 333 Water St, Belton, TX 76513 Description: $750,000 in funding for the City of Belton's Ninth Avenue Extension and Overpass Construction. During rush hours, this main commercial artery experiences congestion that limits commerce and delivery of county services in Belton. Belton, Texas, will extend West 9th Avenue and construct an overpass, spanning Nolan Creek, which will alleviate current Main Street congestion. This project, which appears on the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) will construct a 1,500 feet extension of 9th Avenue to include 36' pavement, an overpass structure, pedestrian safety mechanisms and wastewater infrastructure. Requesting Member: John R. Carter Bill: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Housing and Urban Development--Economic Development Initiatives Requesting Entity: City of Round Rock, TX Address of Requesting Entity: 221 East Main St, Round Rock, TX 78664 Description: $500,000 in funding for the Downtown Revitalization and Main Street Improvements in Round Rock, Texas. This project will provide infrastructure improvements on Main Street from IH 35 to San Saba Street including street, utility and sidewalk improvements. Construction of a new bridge across Lake Creek is also included in the scope of the project. In the 2001 General Obligation Bond election, Round Rock residents made a commitment to providing financing for projects that would foster downtown development. Federal funding will be necessary to support engineering, utility relocation and design and construction activities related to this project. The total project cost is $3.3 million. A preliminary budget breakdown is as follows: Engineering--$425,000; Utilities--$250,000; Design and Construction-- $2,625,000 Requesting Member: John R. Carter Bill: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Housing and Urban Development--Neighborhood Initiatives Requesting entity: City of Harker Heights, Texas Address of Requesting Entity: 305 Millers Crossing, Harker Heights, TX 76548 Description: $750,000 in funding from the HUD EDI account for the City of Harker Heights for the construction a full Armed Services YMCA recreation center on City property. In addition, it would provide recreation and rehabilitation opportunities to the citizens of Harker Heights and to Armed Services personnel both retired and active. Engineering, surveying and inspection will cost approximately $700,000. Constructions costs will be an approximate $6.3 million. Requesting Member: John R. Carter Bill: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 Account: Federal Transit Administration--Buses & Bus Facilities Requesting entity: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Address of Requesting Entity: 2910 East 5th Street, Austin, TX 78702 Description: $1,250,000 in funding for the Capital Metro Transportation Authority of the purchase of para-transit vehicles from the FTA Buses and Bus Facilities account to assist with the replacement of vehicles in our accessible fleet. This funding will allow Capital Metro to service persons with disabilities and allow continued door to door service to allow disabled persons access to mass transit.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs. Americans are asking, where are the jobs? With the unemployment rate at 9.7 percent, Democrats continue to push job-killing bills. First cap-and-tax, and now a plan to socialize health care. We all agree our health care system is clearly in need of reform. Health care costs too much. Families and individuals are seeing their premiums rise, and businesses are having to drop or significantly reduce their coverage to make ends meet. Employees are wondering why their plan no longer covers things like dental or vision. The answer is, the costs are forcing employers to reduce coverage. However, the Democrat government-controlled health care bill actually makes things worse. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says it will raise prices even higher and increase taxes. The Democrats' health care bill also hurts the quality of health care, cuts thousands of jobs, and devastates State economies. There are just too many problems with the Democrat health bill to use a 5-minute speech, so I'm going to focus on one job-killing section, section 1156, which would be the death of physician-owned hospitals, which are a huge job creator and a medical innovator in Texas and throughout the country. Texas has more existing and planned physician hospitals than any other State. To be exact, Texas has 50 physician- owned hospitals that provide 22,000 jobs and contribute $2.3 billion to the Texas economy annually. So let me repeat. This little provision in the Democrat government health plan kills tens of thousands of jobs, tens of millions of tax dollars paid, and over $1 billion of economic activity for the State. If section 1156 becomes law, 104 physician-owned hospitals currently under construction would be lost. This would cost Texans 20,000 jobs and $5 billion in investments. Constituents in my district are letting me know how devastating this provision is for Texas. Hospitals like the Heart Hospital of Austin, rated the number one hospital in America for heart attacks, would not be able to build new hospitals and could only expand after going through several layers of bureaucracy. This is only one small portion in the Democratic government-run health care plan, and it kills jobs. And others kill jobs. In a poll of 5,097 of my constituents, 82 percent oppose the Democrat plan. Nationwide polling indicates the majority of Americans are opposed to the Democrat plan. Let's listen to our constituents and defeat this government-run takeover of our health care.