John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Lynn Westmoreland.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I bring this up because I want to point out that one of the things we are about to do in the omnibus is health care reform fund, $634 billion. Now, what does that mean, health care reform fund? Well, we don't know what it means. Just yesterday the President was asked, are you a socialist, and he said, in several different answers, no, he was not. And yet you hear people say it's for some form of single-pay socialized medicine, but you don't get any commitment that's what it for. In fact, it just says ``fund.''

Mr. CARTER. Even more important, the Constitution of the United States says the Congress initiates spending, not the executive, the Congress. I have absolutely nothing against the President, this is not any criticism, any man sitting in that office, not just Barack Obama, but any person, male or female, and if you give them a blank check and they don't tell you what they are going to use it for--$634 billion, then Congress is not doing its duty.

Mr. CARTER. Here we have got some other things that are curious, Barney Frank's Affordable Housing Trust Fund of $1 billion. Here is one, this is something that concerns me. And I am going to state this on the record so it's very, very clear, that I did not vote for the stimulus bill, and I will tell you why I didn't vote for the stimulus bill. I spent almost the whole night before that vote talking with the former chairman of the FDIC, and the question that he couldn't answer, the question I couldn't get anybody in this House to answer, including my President, the President from my party and the Treasury Secretary from my party, the answers I wanted were what exactly are you going to do with this money? And they said buy bad assets and other things. It was the ``and other things'' that I didn't like. It was the ``and other things'' that said who in their right mind gives a blank check to anybody? I don't care who they are.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. She has done a wonderful job in expressing, I think, the mood of the country and the mood of the people in the country. This weekend I had a great weekend. I opened up a park in one part of my district, then moved to another part of my district and opened another park. And then I went to something called a Daffodil Festival, which is put on by the elderly in our area to raise funds for their center. And there was a huge crowd there, and I just wandered around talking to people. I wasn't there to make a speech or do anything like that, just to talk. And it was amazing how much people wanted to talk about what's going on in Washington. Maybe my part of the world is different from everybody's part of the world, but everybody that I talked to said we are scared to death about what we're spending our money on and how much of our money we're spending. When you start tossing around trillions of dollars, those are numbers that the American people, it's so big, they don't conceive what it means. But when somebody gives them an example like it's a stack of $1,000 bills 63 miles high or if you started giving $1 million away on the day Jesus was born, you still wouldn't have given away $1 trillion today. Those kinds of numbers make people say, wow, that's a lot of money. The average person, they know what they've got in their pocket. They know what the government takes out of their check every month. At least most of them do. And they know what they care about. They want to live a life where they can live the comfortable life of being a free American, the life of liberty that we created when we founded this country. And they see this spending to be enslaving not only this generation but generations and generations to come. And especially, especially, this is such a risk because we have the experience of the New Deal, which, according to the Secretary of Treasury Morgenthau, after 10 years, 9 years of trying, didn't work. He was the guy in charge of the program, and he said the spending didn't work. Now, today there was a fact that came out and it was given to me as the truth. I don't know what the source was, but I think it is the truth, that we have now seen the most rapid fall in the stock market in American modern history, that history going back to 1900. Now, that means during the Great Depression the stock market didn't fall at the rate it has fallen now. Now, I'm not telling people that to scare everybody because everybody is already scared. The truth is it's time for us to step up and say what would you do in your house if the ski was falling, as it seems to be falling in Washington, D.C. today? Most everybody would say, man, you know what we're doing? I'll tell you what we're doing. We're making sure we hold on to our jobs. We're making sure that we are going to have the resources to feed, clothe, and shelter our family first and foremost. We're going to take care of the basics, and we are not going to waste a dime in our budget. I know waste is in the eye of the beholder, and, of course, I probably don't agree with many of the programs that the President has put into the budget and the stimulus package because we have a different view of government and of society. But I can tell you that there was so much put into the package that didn't even have a target to stimulate but rather was to promote an agenda which was a part of political promises that were made on the campaign trail. And when you're talking about three-quarters of $1 trillion, almost, then you're talking about an awful lot of money being spent on promise and not on production. What our job is here in Washington is to produce jobs for the American people.

Mr. CARTER. And that spending was new spending.

Mr. CARTER. That was new spending. You see, we are creating new spending. Well, just for example, we are expanding welfare spending by $2.9 billion. We were proud, and the Democrats and the Republican puffed our chests out when we said we fixed welfare in the 1990s. We did, but we turned it right back around in 2009 and put it right back where it was when we fixed it.

Mr. CARTER

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

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, that is exactly what we have seen. And that is exactly what I think these statements mean. I mean, when we're talking about that trust factor, I don't think that anyone, including the President of the United States, ran on that he was going to fundamentally change the United States of America. What he said was: Hope. Give hope a chance. We are going to bring a new world to this world. But he didn't say, I'm going to change the whole United States government. And maybe it won't. We are still a democracy. And life changes as we move through this 4-year period of time. But getting back to what I'm here to talk about, which is what we've been talking about, is accountability and ethics. And I want to continue to emphasize that I do this out of no malice toward any of the individuals, and I would hope that all of those issues are resolved favorably. The reason I would hope that is I'm not in the business, as others have been, of burning down this House. That's a slogan that's been used for years, but nobody ever went that far. That is far enough to where the American people distrusted the Congress. Yet, we are sitting still at around a 20 percent approval rating, both sides, the Senate and the House. So that means 80 percent of the people don't approve of us. It's because we burn down the Congress. We called each other corrupt. I'm a person who believes that every person has the right to be heard and every person has the right to a fair defense. Everyone. And I would hope that we hear those defenses and see those defenses, because the list goes on and on. John Murtha, with the millions of dollars he's funneling to companies in his district, with the explanation that they create jobs. Yet, those questions by Defense Department to see if they even have a purpose. Hilda Solis, who is the Treasurer of the America's Right to Work Association, which were fiduciary duties, and she lobbied Congress and took direction action. None of those things would entitle her to be holding office. She failed to pay taxes to the IRS for 16 years. Nothing has been done about that. William Jefferson is under indictment for $90,000 in cash in his freezer. The cold cash case. I'm sure that's going to be resolved sometime, now that it is in the court system. And it goes on and on. We have Tim Mahoney, who was using taxpayer funds to pay extortion to a former staffer to keep his mistress a secret from his wife. The voters kept him from coming to Congress. Recently, Senator Burris, who now it's pretty clear that there are accusations that he perjured himself when he gave testimony about the Governor's campaign funds, and yet no one seems to be wanting to do anything about that. This just goes on and on and on. And, quite frankly, there is so much more to go, I don't really want to go into it. I have talked about some of these things previously. And what is the issue that I am trying to bring forth here? The issue that I am trying to bring forth here is: Government, when you send someone to Washington, whether you send them 100 miles or 50 miles away from home, or whether you send them 2,000 miles away from home, you expect to be able to trust those people to do what they said they would do and to stand for what they say they stand for. And one of the things you want to know is that these people are trustworthy. Now, when we have issues like this that are raised without being answered and we have a body whose job it is to resolve those issues, the Ethics Committee, and the Ethics Committee is not doing their job, or if they are we are not seeing the results, then you can't expect people in Wichita, Kansas, or Round Rock, Texas, or San Francisco, California, to hear these things and see these things and not wonder, are those people trustworthy enough to be taking care of my business in the Nation's capital? And I think many of them would then say, if it sticks to one, it sticks to all; which is basically the message that was put out by the Democrats in the last Congress. I don't agree that if it sticks to one, it sticks to all. I think any time you gather the amount of people that gather in this Congress there are going to be mistakes made. I don't think you can get past it. And I think you can take any body of people, even any membership in a church, and you are going to find that there are issues that would cause people to be concerned. That is not our job. Our job is to make sure that we are the most honest, ethical Congress in history, as the Speaker has challenged us to be. And it is her job as the Speaker, I think, to promote going forward on these issues in every way she can to get these matters resolved; because until they are resolved, they deserve to be talked about, and when they are talked about they can't help but cause people to be concerned. I am going to tell you that I have been in Congress now since 2002, and prior to that time I served 20 years as a trial judge in Georgetown, Texas, trying felony cases among other things. But I can tell you, I have encountered an awful lot of people on both sides of the aisle in this Congress, and the vast majority of these people are beyond reproach and outstanding individuals and great Americans. They are working long, terrible hours, and wearing out a lot of shoe leather marching up and down these halls to subcommittee and committee hearings to make sure that the Nation's business is done to best of their ability. And that is why, as someone who believes that there is a world of right and wrong, good and evil, that it isn't what each person thinks it is, but there is a concept among humanity that says certain things are right and certain things are wrong. And you can't make it relative to anything. It is a fact. As one who believes that way, I think it is our duty, and, in particular, it is my mission to point these things out and say let's resolve these issues. And that is part of my message here, because I don't want the vast, vast majority of the people in this Congress tainted. I don't care what party they are in, I don't want them tainting the whole body politic of the Congress. There are just too many good people here working too hard to do the right thing, what they and their constituents perceive to be the right thing. That is as it should be. But for us to not address these issues, allow them to be swept under the carpet and forgotten, whenever you mention something and it just logs a little thought pressed in the back of somebody's brain, it is always there until it is resolved. We need to resolve these issues and they need to be resolved properly. And if we are going to put people who have unresolved issues in a position of authority in this Congress, I think that brings consequences that are grave to the Congress and this Nation. So, therefore, if people are in a position where ethics is questioned, morality is questioned, it is for the good of the Congress that they not serve in those positions. It happens to be a Republican party rule that if someone is indicted, they must step down from the position of leadership. And that actually occurred in the last Congress. I happen to be someone who, for 20 years, told juries every week: An indictment is nothing but a legal accusation. It is no proof of guilt, and no assumption of guilt should be taken by any member of the jury based upon the indictment. It is a legal acquisition, a form by which the State knows what it has to prove and the defense knows what it has to defend. But the Republicans decided that was enough to require someone to step down, which is kind of above and beyond the call of duty; but if that is the standard, it ought to be the standard for everybody. Everyone should choose to adopt the high standards that are set by the highest of standards in this body. So that is what I have been talking about in these days when I have come in here, and that is what I will continue to talk about, because I believe in our court systems. I believe that our court systems are good sources of justice for the people who use them. And every time somebody walks out the door, one party is unhappy. But the fact is, they resolve the conflict, and they do it justly and fairly between the parties. I believe we should justly and fairly deal with each other in this Congress, and I believe that we should justly and fairly respect each other in this Congress. And I believe that when there are issues which taint the Congress, we should be willing to demand those issues be resolved; and, if they aren't resolved, we should demand that the persons who are not trying to get it resolved step down from positions of authority that they may hold. Now, that may be harsh, but I believe in justice. If you believe in justice, right is right and wrong is wrong. And if there is wrong and it goes unresolved, it is bad for the entire Nation and the world. And for that reason, I have been standing before this House many days all by myself, kind of the voice crying in the wilderness. Let's get to be a just body again. Let's get to be where people look at congressmen and say, I am proud to know that Congressman. You know, when I ran for the Congress, I was in College Station, Texas, and I ran into three of my colleagues in the judiciary, trial judges, district judges, in College Station. And they asked me, why would anybody leave the branch of government that generally makes sense to go to the branch of government that never makes sense? And I laughed and I said, well, maybe an old judge can help make some of it make sense. And maybe not. But I also at that time thought they thought, and as I thought and still think, that the Congress is worthy of respect. So that we may be a body worthy of respect, I raise these issues. I will continue to raise these issues until we have resolved these issues, and hopefully we can go forward in raising the standards for this body so that people look with respect upon the Congress of the United States of America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentlelady. Reclaiming my time, I want to point out this is the same Rahm Emanuel who I think flippantly said, A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. As he added all these programs that had been promised programs of various sorts into the various spending bills that we had, he made that statement. That statement has been quoted on multiple occasions in the newspaper. Probably a flippant statement. But it shows the cynicism within which this whole thing is viewed, and it undermines the trust that we are supposed to have for the people that are in charge.

Mr. CARTER. Well, it's hard to change from one bicycle ride to another one, but we will give it a shot anyway and finish up what we were talking about on that spending. I just want to tell a story to you about a little old, a real good little school that's in my district, Tarleton State University, who took on a project which was started by Congressman Stenholm and then later supported by me to do a little data mining on crop insurance. This is a relatively small but important program used in the farm community, crop insurance. And they wanted to see if they could find, by doing data mining, waste, fraud and abuse. And, in reality, they found and actually, I guess, went forward on, prosecuted, $500 million, a half a billion, $500 million of waste, fraud and abuse in the crop insurance program. This is a little small but good university in central Texas. They also, by going actually going after these people, turned around, they estimated, another $1 billion worth of crop insurance fraud that was out there. Now, if Tarleton State University, this fine little school in my district, can go out and do a data mining project on a small program and find that kind of waste, fraud and abuse, what could we find in a put together rapidly massive spending program like we have been describing in the previous hour? I think that's what the American people want this government to do. They want to find out where we are cheating and wasting the government and getting rid of it, and they want us to put together a tax structure that encourages businesses to hire people. I had a conversation, and this will be the last thing I will say on this, I had a conversation with a family, a Hispanic family, four or five, I forget, at that fiesta I was telling you I went to. They were talking about one of them lost his job, the other two had gone on reduced hours, and you know what their comment was? They made a joke about I haven't received my check yet, about the famous percentage check they thought they were go going to get. And then they laughingly said and got serious, they said, we don't want a check, we want a job. And we want something to turn around to where people want to keep their jobs open. Let us work a full, 40-hour week. We want to work. We are not looking for a handout. I really think that's the American people and that's what they stand for, and I think that is our challenge that we go forward on that. But today there are some other issues that I think there are issues that go hand-in-hand with what we are doing with the economy, because in reality, the real issue of what drives the markets and what drives the confidence of the American people support the trust issue. It's can we trust the people we put in charge of this mess in Washington to be doing this thing as straight and as straightforward as they honestly can without any particular person or agenda or personal profit from the procedure, but, rather, to be doing the best they can for the American people. Can we trust them? And that's really what we are up here about. You know, when I ran for Congress, I made the statement, which I was loaned from John Culberson, his campaign, that it's all about who do you trust to go a couple of thousand miles away from home and do what they say they are going to do. Well, that's the real issue. The real issue is trust. If we start to see it, and in the last Congress, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they came up with the culture of corruption and used it very effectively to defeat Republicans and raised issues, certain issues that ended up with people going to prison, and I understand that. But that doesn't mean when we change that those issues all of a sudden don't matter any more to be discussed, because they need to be discussed, and we have issues right now that are destroying the underpinnings of trust that the American people have for those who are in charge. And I have, on a couple of occasions prior to today come in and talked about the Rangel rule. I was interested to see this morning on the news, some gentleman wrote in to the IRS that he had failed to pay his taxes and he was going to catch up when he could. Until that time, he was exercising the Rangel rule, and he named three or four other people's rule, and that he didn't expect to pay penalties and interest when he got caught up with his taxes. Well, I didn't tell you that was the law, I told you that's what I thought the law ought to be. But the point is somebody gets it, that's not fair. Somebody gets it, how can you trust somebody when they get special privileges and you don't? Then I picked up this morning's newspaper, Roll Call, and I find that we have got another issue that ought to be talked about, and these are people that we work with and we respect, and there may be an explanation, but I think we are owed an explanation. Congressman Mollohan, according to this morning's paper, his family foundation received $75,000 worth of free rent from a group that he helped start and he got millions of dollars of earmarks for so they could exist, and he got $75,000 worth of free rent for his family foundation. I don't know if that's a bad thing or a good thing, but it doesn't sound right. It doesn't meet the ``'tain't right test.'' Maybe it does meet the ``'tain't right test,'' and something needs to be explained. I am not calling anybody corrupt, like we were called corrupt, which, by the way, irritated the heck out of me. But, I am saying it ought to be explained, and I am saying that it is part of what I have been talking about, that there is accountability that's required of folks in this House. Besides the things that I have raised against Chairman Rangel and the taxes, there are those and other things. I have a poster over there, which I guess I am not going to put up, I forgot to, but it shows a long line of people waiting in New York City to sign up for rent- subsidized apartments. And by Mr. Rangel's own admission on the floor of this House, he had four rent-subsidized apartments--and I understand none of which qualified to live in--that he knocked out walls and made it into one big apartment and a campaign headquarters in a building where lines were going around the corner for families who were entitled to live in rent-subsidized apartments were waiting to get in. I think that needs to be more adequately explained than it was. Just by turning yourself into the ethics department does not mean that you have answered the question. So these issues are issues that are with us. They are issues that, if we are going to talk about trust in Washington, we have got to also be able to talk about trust from the American people about the activities that are going on in Washington. We learned that the Chief of Staff of the White House, Rahm Emanuel, he lived rent-free in an apartment that was owned partially by one of our Members, Ms. DeLauro, but also owned by her husband, who the DCCC, which Rahm Emanuel is in charge of, gave $500,000 in projects to do I think it was surveys and such and so and so. So, he benefited of a value of $100,000 worth of free rent over a 5-year period of time, and it can be argued that he gave contracts to the people that he benefited from. Now, maybe that's not what happened. You know, I used to tell juries all the time--for 20 years, I looked every juror in the eye and said, You're not to read anything about this case in the newspaper, watch anything on television, or listen to anything on the radio about this case. Because, believe it or not, sometimes the newspapers get things wrong. And they would all laugh because they knew that was the truth. And I'm just saying, we have at this time probably the biggest crisis in American history, certainly in my lifetime, and I have been around much longer than the Speaker has, and I can tell you that this is the biggest crisis. And I had a man, one of the most highly respected former Members of this body, both sides of the aisle respect and love him--I won't use his name because I don't want people to know how he feels--but he said, Never, in all the things I have been through, war, recessions, and other things, have I ever been so concerned for the future of my country as I am today. When that kind of statesman makes those kind of statements, we are in a time where at least it is the feeling of our Nation that we are worried about the future. And we are worried and want to trust those we have put in office. And I want them to be able to trust us. So, I am saying when I raise these issues, these are issues that cause more distrust. And they need to be responded to, and they need to be resolved. Quite frankly, they need to be resolved, in many instances, by a body of this House--the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee needs to function. And I don't know if the American people would think, if they don't know the Ethics Committee, they would say, Why wouldn't it function? I don't know. I'm not on the Ethics Committee. But I can tell you this. It's a committee made up of 50 percent Democrats and 50 percent Republicans. If everybody votes their party line, nothing happens, because it's 50-50. So, it's a serious committee to be assigned. It's a committee that requires you to sit in judgment upon your fellow Members and to do what is right for America, not what is right for either party or any Member of this House, but what is right for the United States of America under the rules we operate under. That Ethics Committee needs to function, and it needs to function now.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the important and essential role that athletic trainers play in providing quality health care across our nation. Our nation's health care system is complex and every day people with many different health needs are served by legions of caring, qualified, and professional athletic trainers. Athletic trainers are health care professionals who hold at least a bachelor's degree in athletic training. Almost 70 percent of athletic trainers have a master's degree or PhD. Athletic trainers are licensed health care professionals who provide injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation to patients of all ages. Athletic trainers work under the direction of physicians to provide care to patients. Historically, they worked with athletes in secondary schools, colleges, universities and professional sports. Today, about 50 percent work outside of these athletic settings. Many athletic trainers are employed by clinics, hospitals, physician offices, commercial workplaces, the United States Armed Forces, and performing arts companies. The focus of athletic trainers' care is to prevent injuries and support patients and clients in their rehabilitation efforts to regain function as quickly and safely as possible. Athletic trainers pass a national certifying exam. In most of the 46 states where they are licensed or otherwise regulated, the national certification is required for licensure. Athletic trainers maintain this certification with required continuing education. They work under a medical scope of practice, and adhere to a national code of ethics. I strongly support the vital role athletic trainers play in our health care system. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this important group of health professionals.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act: Requesting Member: Congressman John R. Carter Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Bus and Bus Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Address of Requesting Entity: 2910 E. 5th Street, Austin, TX 78702 Description of Request: $2,612,500 is received for Capital Metro's Paratransit Vehicle Replacement. Pursuant to, and in accordance with, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Capital Metro provides door-to- door van and sedan Para-transit service throughout Central Texas for persons with disabilities and senior citizens. This $11.7 million (FY08 operating budget) program provides more than 500,000 rides each year. Capital Metro will be replacing many of the vans and sedans that serve this program, as they are retired during the coming fiscal year. Requesting Member: Congressman John R. Carter Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Temple Health & Bioscience Economic Development District Address of Requesting Entity: 938 Canyon Creek Drive, Temple, TX 76502 Description of Request: $381,000 is for the seed money to acquire a state of the art cyclotron and related equipment for the production of radioisotopes. Future funding requests may be submitted. Cyclotron--$2,350,000 Micro PET Scanner--$265,000 Micro Lab--$58,000 Lab Equipment--$375,000 Shielding--$32,000 Rigging--$35,000 Building Construction $425,000 Start-Up Funding--$65,000 Misc. Expenses--$17,000 Total--$3,622,000 Requesting Member: Congressman John R. Carter Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Southwestern University (Georgetown, TX) Address of Requesting Entity: 1001 E. University Avenue, Georgetown, TX 78626 Description of Request: $466,000 is for the TLCC, which is an innovative national model for a biotechnology, life-sciences and nanotechnology center for recruiting and developing emerging companies. The faculty and students of Southwestern University will participate in research partnerships and internships using the requested laboratory equipment, wet lab, and nanotechnology clean room. Budget: Key equipment and activities to be funded through this one- time federal request are as follows: VWR Science Instruments--$48,549 VWR Wet Lab--55,924 VWR Clean Room--29,839 VWR Conference Room and Equipment--31,882 NanoScience Atomic Force Microscope--101,058 Leeds Instruments Confocal Microscope--95,000 Applied Biosystems Mass Spectrometer--35,000 Ground Zero Anti-static Flooring--2,295 Ground Zero Installation--2,000 Guardian Power Generator--16,500 Guardian Generator Pad and Installation--7,500 Indirect Costs (15%)--63,832 Total--$489,379 Requesting Member: Congressman John R. Carter Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Higher Education (Includes FIE) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Texas State University (Round Rock Higher Education Center) Address of Requesting Entity: 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666 Description of Request: $476,000 in funding will continue to support the efforts to establish a nursing program at RRHEC. The Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) is an entirely new major for Texas State University only to be offered at RRHEC. Funding for equipment for the clinical and simulation laboratories and additional nursing faculty and staff for the simulations laboratories continues to be needed and FY09 funding will be used for the salaries for the nursing program personnel as well as the simulation lab equipment and operating costs. Future funding requests are expected. FY09 Budget--$1,500,000 Funding Request for Salaries and Benefits for Nursing Program Personnel--$700,000 Director for Community and Continuing Education (1) Administrative and Lab Staff (4) Faculty (5) Simulation Laboratory Equipment and Operating Costs--$800,000 Requesting Member: Congressman John R. Carter Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Elementary and Secondary Education Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Communities-in-Schools, Bell-Coryell Counties, Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 4520 E. Central Texas Expressway, Suite 106, Killeen, TX 76543 Description of Request: $143,000 was secured for the Youngest Victims of War Project. The goal of the project is to continue to impact the lives of a minimum of 1,800 military children in a positive way by keeping them in school and focused on performing to their greatest potential. To accomplish this, the CIS staff focus on the following components while case managing students: Supportive Guidance and Counseling, Educational Enhancement, Parental and Family Involvement, Enrichment Activities, Health and Human Service Coordination, and Employment Skills Training. These activities encourage academic excellence, promote positive self-esteem, stress community involvement, and promote growth opportunities for students and their families. Future funding requests are expected. Budget breakdown for the project:

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me this evening. I was real pleased to see our 30-Something Group over there has expanded their folks, a lot of new faces, and new faces are good for Congress. It is good to see them, and even though my in my opinion they are a little misdirected, they certainly are entitled to their opinion. I am not here to debate them tonight. Maybe some other night I might be here for that purpose. Tonight I am here because I have been raising and talking about an issue here in the last couple of weeks, probably now going on a month, about a change in the tax law that I proposed in the form of a bill that I introduced here to instigate the ``Rangel Rule,'' which would allow ordinary citizens to be treated as nicely as Charlie Rangel, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who by his own admission on the floor of this House failed to pay taxes for a period of quite a long time, something like 10 years or better. But he did catch up on those taxes when he finally realized kind of, whoops, I messed up for about 10 years, and maybe I ought to pay these taxes. It may have been a longer period of time than that. I don't know. It is not really relevant to the issue. The issue is that he was not assessed any penalties or interest by the IRS. I really have a hard time figuring that out, because I have talked to a lot of people back home in Texas who have like not filed their taxes on April 15th, but have gotten an extension, and they ended up filing like on August 15th or October 15th, which is not a real long delay, nothing to compare with like 10 years or 20 years or whatever the period was. But they all got assessed penalties and interest by the IRS, and we really don't like to think that just because somebody happens to be the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that they should be treated any differently than, say, those folks back there that I talked to in Texas or the folks that have contacted me from all over the country on this issue. So I have been raising that issue, and in all fairness tonight I want to be fair to Chairman Rangel, because he is a man that, of course, this House highly respects. There are other issues that have to do with Mr. Rangel. We may go into some of those tonight. But in all fairness to the chairman, maybe I should have expanded this rule a little bit, because there are others who have issues that need to be dealt with, at least talked about. You know, the current Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, I guess he had some issues that he had with taxes too. His were very confusing to me, because the other day, I couldn't find the board tonight, but we had a picture of a letter that a company sent, a fairly sizable check around $30,000-plus that was sent to Mr. Geithner, telling him here was his money he was supposed to pay his taxes with, and he was signing, by the obligation of this form, he was obligating himself to pay his Social Security and Medicare taxes. And that he, by the signing of this document said, ``I sure will. I promise you. I give you my word, that I will pay these taxes.'' And then, whoops, he just kind of let it slip his mind for about 4 years. And, in fact, it had completely slipped his mind until he became the subject of discussion in the United States Senate about whether or not he had a clear conscience to serve as the Treasury Secretary of the United States. At that point in time, he realized that, ``Uh-oh, I believe I forgot something. I believe I forgot to pay my taxes for 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and maybe some more.'' And so he rushed in and he paid those taxes. Now, he didn't pay them all because he was slick enough or smart enough or maybe good lawyer, if he's lawyer, enough to know that the statute of limitations had run on 2 years of these taxes he was supposed to pay. And so I think he relied upon that statute to prevent him from having to pay that amount of money. But he, like Chairman Rangel, he did some hustling and some catching up, and he caught up and he paid his taxes. Now, you know, it's real upsetting to the IRS when people don't pay their income taxes. They get real upset about it. But my experience of being a lawyer and a judge for, well, going on 30-something years is that they get particularly irritated when you don't pay the Social Security and Medicare taxes you're required to pay, because they kind of feel like that's a whole lot bigger crime than slipping up and miscalculating on your income tax. And they get downright serious about that. I've seen them padlock people's businesses over failing to pay those taxes. I have a good friend that used to run a place called Big G's in Round Rock, and he got padlocked all the time back in the '70s when I represented him. And he always got slapped with heavy penalties and heavy interest. But Mr. Geithner, Secretary Geithner, he finally paid some of those taxes, and he paid some taxes, some interest. But once again, just like Chairman Rangel, he wasn't assessed any penalties for intentionally not paying his taxes. And I say ``intentionally'' only by the state of the evidence that has been presented and the fact that he signed a document addressed to the IRS in which he pledged to them that he knew that the check they had sent him was for taxes and he knew he was obligated to pay those things. So, with that sworn statement, I think it's pretty fair to say he intentionally didn't pay his taxes. Now, you know, he may have had just a temporary lapse of memory, but let's hope not, because we really don't want to think that the man that's in charge of the monetary system of the United States has that kind of temporary lapses of memory. I mean, we, as American citizens, certainly don't look for that quality in a Treasurer. And so I think we ought to be concerned about that. So I guess what I'm starting off to say here is that I don't want Mr. Rangel to think that I'm just mistreating him by himself, because I really don't intend to do that. I really think it's time for us to look at all these issues that are ethical issues that seem to have come up in the majority since the Democrats have been in charge of this Congress. And, you know, it's kind of funny. I think it's really amazing. There are polls that show that the American people really think that the Democrats have only been in charge of this Congress since President Obama got in office. But, I mean, that's a mistake. This is actually the third year that the Democrats have been in charge of this Congress. So those things that everybody talked about last year that they thought the Congress did very poorly, and many seem to point the fingers at the Republicans, at that time the Republicans were not in charge of this Congress. This was the Democrats' Congress. They are in charge of it. They decide what comes to the floor and what doesn't come to the floor. They set the policies of this Congress at this time, and they have for the last almost 3 years. So back when the Republicans were in charge, they talked about a culture of corruption. I'm not talking about a culture of corruption yet, but I am talking about certainly some lapses in ethical behavior on behalf of our colleagues. And as our President, who, by the way, made a very nice speech last night, and many of us were very taken back by his speech--and we all recognize his very good talent at speaking to the American public. President Obama is a very skilled speaker. And I sat right there in that chair right there, and I listened to the whole thing, and I was impressed. But he's had a little problem with some of his people that he's gotten to go to work for him. Besides the ones that we just talked about--and Secretary Geithner got away with what he had to do. I guess if we're going to have the ``Rangel Rule,'' we might have the ``Geithner Getaway,'' because he certainly got away with not paying his taxes for a period of time. But, you know, Secretary of State, who was a candidate for the President of the United States, Hillary Clinton, she also had some issues that people got concerned about and probably should be. Her husband's foundation, President Clinton's foundation, received over $500,000 in donations from foreign governments and foreign nationals, and we've asked President Clinton's wife, Secretary Hillary Clinton, to be our representative to those foreign nations. There are strict guidelines about accepting donations like this, but it seems that those restrictions didn't seem to apply to her. Of course, she's been confirmed and she does represent us with all foreign countries and all the foreign representation in the world. She is our agent. She speaks for us. The question we have is, is it ethical to take donations from foreigners and then serve this Nation as our representative with foreign nations? Is that the right kind of behavior? Is that the ethics that this House ought to be standing up for and the Senate ought to be standing up for? Could there be a conflict of interest here that we really should have discussed? Because she's negotiating with nations, many of whom have contributed to a foundation which furthers issues that are important to Bill and Hillary Clinton. So, you know, she's there, and I'm sure that she's going to do a good job. I certainly hope so. But I think we at least ought to ask these ethical questions about Secretary Clinton. Governor Richardson from New Mexico was another one that the President of the United States thought would be an outstanding Cabinet member. He was man enough to actually pull his name down because there were being issues raised in New Mexico about payments of pay-for-play schemes with companies that were involved with the State of New Mexico. And rather than bring this ethical lapse to the forefront, he thought it was better if he just stayed in New Mexico and dealt with his issues there, rather than having to bring them up here to Washington. That's good. It's a good thing. It looks like, after two or three tries, we're finally going to hopefully get a Commerce Secretary here. So the whole point of being here tonight is to point out that you're not hearing a lot about it but there are an awful lot of ethical lapses of judgment that are going on in the Congress these days. And they seem to be all coming from the ruling majority. I see that I have a friend here that has joined me. He's always a good friend, and he always comes to my aid when I'm standing alone, and that's my good friend and classmate, Dr. Burgess from Texas. Dr. Burgess, I'd like you to join me and give us your ideas on some of the subjects we're talking about and any other subjects you want to talk about. I'll yield you such time as you may choose to consume.

Mr. CARTER. Truly, it's not a good night to go into the complexities because I think everybody knows it's pretty simple, that if you have to pay penalties and interest when you fail or if you just make a mistake on your income tax--and my colleagues who sit around this House would be in that same boat, I assume, because they're not the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee--then maybe the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee ought to pay those penalties and interest, too. If he doesn't, then maybe none of us should. That's the whole idea behind the Rangel Rule. It's a simple rule. Just write at the bottom of your tax form ``wish to exercise the Rangel Rule,'' and all penalties and interest would be excused. What a joy that would be for so many taxpayers in the United States. It would be a bipartisan effort because it wouldn't just be for Republicans or Democrats or even Independents. It would be for everybody.

Mr. CARTER. Well, I appreciate your coming back up here and telling us about the flat tax. I think the flat tax is a concept that all Americans, no matter what party they're a part of, should at least have the patience to take a look at. The flat tax is for the simplification of the public's life because, really and truly, we spend overtime around this place complicating Americans' lives. I believe they would be blessed to no end if we would just spend a little time de- complicating their lives. This last week, in fact, I got off the phone tonight. A fellow asked me about that stimulus package. He said he watched John Boehner drop that thing on the floor here and scare everybody in the room. He wanted to know was that really the stimulus package or was that just something he dropped to get people's attention. I said, ``No, that was it,'' and that was very complicated. I think, honestly, everybody would say that, in the 12 hours that that stimulus package was available to Republicans and to many Democrats, nobody, even the best speed reader wasn't able to read that almost 1,100 pages and decipher what it meant. Unfortunately, I happen to be a fellow who has had to deal with deciphering what the law means for a long time. And some of the Federal laws are written in such a way that, you know what? It takes an act of Congress to figure them out, as we say back down in Texas, because they are very complicated, and we complicate people's lives. So the flat tax may be an idea whose time has come that we won't complicate people's lives. The purpose of talking about all of these issues that concern the ethical behavior of this House is because it has been the subject of the 30-Something Group which preceded me here for at least 4 years that I know of. I have sat in the chair where the Speaker is sitting right now and heard the 30-Something Group accuse people in this House of corruption. I haven't accused anyone of corruption because I think, actually, that's beyond the pale of what Members of Congress should do. I just said that there is ethical lapses that have to be discussed, and if they turn out to be more than that, that's for someone other than me to discuss. That's for someone like the Ethics Committee or the Justice Department to deal with, but not for me to deal with. I'm certainly not accusing anyone of corruption here tonight. But I am very concerned that we put sunlight on the types of behaviors where Members of Congress have failed to do the responsibilities that we tell the American citizens is their responsibility as a citizen--that is, pay their taxes and pay them on time. And yet they don't suffer the penalties that the average taxpayer suffers for failing to do that. That's the purpose of me being here today. I'm really pleased to see my friend from California (Mr. Dreier) here. I hope he will talk to you and share some of his wisdom on the issues of ethics. I know you served in this House for many, many years, and you've dealt with these issues over and over. And I'd like to yield you what time you'd like to use here.

Mr. CARTER. And I thank you for your comments, my friend from California. Mr. Dreier, as we have well seen, is very knowledgeable in the concepts of this House and how it operates, and the history of this House and what the history tells us. I want to thank both my colleagues for coming out here today. And, quite frankly, we have been asked by and challenged by the administration to put forth ideas. I would hope that the White House is monitoring what was said by both of my colleagues here tonight as some ideas that ought to be looked at and considered. We really do want to work with the administration and share ideas. And we would really like to have a world where nothing is off base, because obviously the two parties disagree on a lot of policy, but a free flow of information and ideas is what the American people expect us to do. And I think we heard two gentlemen tonight who put forth different, but similar, ideas as to how to simplify our lives and how to turn things around. To me, bipartisan is not, ``here's our bill, if you vote for it, we're bipartisan.'' Bipartisan is, we sit down and we discuss the issues, sometimes one at a time. And when we conclude, we hear both sides, and then people are willing to give and take to make it work. You know, if the President of the United States told us when he was elected that he was vehemently opposed to earmarks, that he was going to do everything he could to get rid of earmarks, and if he finds spending in a bill that everyone would acknowledge is an earmark and he chooses to veto that bill because it goes against what he told the American people his principles were and the Republicans help support that veto because they agree with the principles that he put forward, that is certainly bipartisanship--and that opportunity may actually arise over the Omnibus bill that we passed today with the 9,000 some odd earmarks that are contained therein. So that's bipartisanship. Listening to what Mr. Dreier and Mr. Burgess have to say and not dismissing it out of hand, that's bipartisanship. And so, that's kind of an aside from what I'm here to talk about tonight. But I'm really grateful for my colleagues to come in here and put these ideas out on the table because I think they're good ideas. And I don't necessarily agree completely with every one of them, but I'm certainly willing to listen. And I think our President has told us he is willing to listen. And I take him at his word. I think he is, and I hope he will. And I feel good about it; I think he will. Now, I've talked about ethical issues tonight, I'm going to talk about them some more because there's a lot more that we can talk about. And they are issues that are important. And I'm trying to be friendly about it, but make no mistake, I have spent 26 years of my life making sure that the laws of my State are abided by. And people who violate those laws, after all of their rights are protected under the Constitution, if they are convicted of doing something wrong, I honestly believe they should be punished. And I've been involved in that also. So, although I try to be friendly about this discussion--and I will continue to try to be friendly because the American people are tired of mean spiritedness--I want everyone to understand that, from my personal belief, everyone is entitled to their day in court, everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent. I'm not making accusations that you should consider convictions. But should there be a conviction, I believe that this body is not above the law, and we should keep it that way. And I will pledge myself to do so. And I think every Member of this body would feel the same way. And that's why these little ethical slips give the impression that somebody might be above the law. We are a nation of laws, we are not a nation of men. And being a nation of laws, we expect everyone, no matter what their status, to abide by those laws. This body is a body of rules, and we expect Members of this body to abide by those rules; and the failure to abide has consequences. So even though I'm trying to be as friendly as I can on these issues, I want everybody to understand that those are principles that this country stands on and that this body stands on, and I intend to make sure that those principles stand firm. I think my colleagues across the board, both sides of the aisle, in their heart of hearts will agree with me. And I think it was a right policy when a Member, even though a close, personal friend of mine, was accused of something, that under our rules he had to step down until his issues were resolved. And I think it's unfortunate that the Democrats, under their rules, don't take the same position; that if a serious accusation of misbehavior or breaking the law is raised against a Member in the form of an indictment, that that person has to step down from positions of leadership. Both sides should have the same rules. Unfortunately, we don't have it that way. Still, I defend every person's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And I will stand for any Member of this House, no matter what his party affiliation, to preserve that right on his behalf because I have preserved that right on behalf of thousands of people who were convicted by a jury of their peers of heinous crimes, and yet that was a right guaranteed by our Constitution. It's a right guaranteed to our Members. So make no mistake, I make no accusations of guilt because that's not appropriate under our system, but I do raise questions of ethical lapses, and I will continue to do so. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to speak here tonight. I'm going to yield back my time now. And I want to thank my colleagues who joined me here tonight. And we will be doing some more of this, and I hope other colleagues will join us and give us their ideas.

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time for questions to my colleague. First off, I'm very aware that my colleague has been a strong proponent of the flat tax as we've been here in Congress, and I appreciate his coming up again and giving us his special message about what he sees as a solution to this problem. If I could ask you a question, Dr. Burgess: On the issue of Senator Daschle, who took about $180,000 worth of car rides or something, would this form solve that problem? Would that still be income to Mr. Daschle under the flat tax?

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, Dr. Burgess, in a sense of fairness to our colleagues, I've come up with the Rangel Rule. Do you think that I should seek to amend the legislation to expand the definition or the title of this rule where it's not just all on poor Chairman Rangel's back? Maybe we could call it the Rangel/ Geithner/Daschle/Who is Next Rule on paying taxes.

Mr. CARTER. That's the answer. I was wondering about that because it sure would have helped Senator Daschle in his quest to serve at the cabinet level of this administration if he hadn't had to claim those things, but of course, I guess we know under the present Tax Code--and most everybody knows--that if somebody spends money on your behalf, you gain benefit from spending money on your behalf. I mean most all of us around here have to catch a cab every now and then. Shoot, it doesn't take any time at all before you run up a $15 or $20 cab fare. So I guess, in having a car drive you all over town for several years, you ought to kind of in the back of your mind figure that somebody's paying for this, and it's certainly not you, and they're doing it on your behalf, and you're getting the use of it, so maybe you ought to at least think about the fact that it ought to be income to you in some form or fashion. It certainly was a benefit. I think that maybe Senator Daschle ought to be jumping up and down to be promoting the flat tax over with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle so he can, maybe, stay out of this kind of trouble the next time he comes along and somebody wants to make him one of the Secretaries of our administration. I guess Mr. Richardson could have some benefit from the flat tax, and Mr. Geithner might even have some benefit from the flat tax. In fact, you've come up with a solution, and I want to thank you for coming up with solutions. Now, I have some friends who would argue that the fair tax also would be a solution, but we won't go into that today.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman. The President told us that this bill was not going to have any earmarks in it and if it was, he was going to do something about it and I'm proud of him. I'm concerned about an earmark. An earmark is a Member-directed initiative. We have an earmark for a train from Las Vegas to California. That seems to be one of the earmarks we had. I'm not sure in this 25 feet high bill we've got here that we've still got the mouse, but we had a $30 million earmark for a mouse in California. I hope you'll veto this bill.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. That's exactly right. The whole point being that it's something, when it worked we were proud to say we got people off welfare and into real jobs. And one of the reasons was because we put a go-to-work provision in that bill. This bill would take that out, which is casting us back to the era of the 1960s and the 1970s and the failed economic policies that we clearly corrected in the 1990s. Now, that's going backwards, and I think the American people need to know that this is not just too much money and too little stimulus. This is also messing with their lives. Hidden in this bill there are things that are messing with their lives.

Mr. CARTER. That's right.

Mr. CARTER. The other thing we have to remember is what looms on the horizon is even more borrowed money to where some estimates are this year we'll put in 2.3, I think it is, trillion dollars we will be seeking that to borrow that amount of money. The $838 billion will be the largest indebtedness ever put into the market, according to the experts. So what happens when we've got almost $2.5 trillion?

Mr. CARTER. On the commonsense side of this whole thing, this all started, if you remember what you heard from the administration and from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this was an infrastructure building bill. That's what we were going to do. We were going to rebuild the infrastructure of America. When people hear infrastructure, they think roads and bridges. And yet, it's my understanding that the $30 billion that the House sent over to be spent for roads and bridges has been reduced to $28 billion coming back. So it's a joke.