John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. You know, the great saviors of the socialist states' medical plans were the medical facilities of the United States of America. The reality came when the rationing took place as you described. Just exactly what you described took place. The people who had the money to get the health care came to the last bastion of freedom for health care--the United States of America--and they got that hip transplant or had a heart transplant or whatever it took so that they could continue productive lives. That's the way we want it in this country. We want to be able to work hard and to have the best, and that's why we're standing up here today. I don't fault the good consciences of many people who support this plan. It is not going to work, and we can do better. Rushing to judgment has already proven in the ``bailout bill'' to be a disaster. Let's not rush to judgment.

Mr. CARTER. That's right.

Mr. CARTER. I think the common sense of the American people is boundless, and they know that what goes on in Washington is a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. But when you say something very simple, we're going to spend $280,000 to create a $50,000-a-year job, they say, what? That makes no sense. And oh, by the way, we're saying this is temporary, but it's got the potential to be permanent spending. That's the real fear we have to be afraid of because then we go farther and farther and farther in debt because it's all borrowed money. Did you know that when this package hits the market to ask people to loan us the money, it will be the largest amount of indebtedness in the history of man that's ever been placed on the market?

Mr. CARTER. For every $50,000 a year job.

Mr. CARTER. Is going for roads and bridges, that's right.

Mr. CARTER. Well, as we look back, and I've heard the chairman of the Appropriations Committee rail in favor of what FDR did in the Great Depression and how successful it was. And yet, right there by his own Secretary of Treasury's admittance, the spending programs failed. And I think history is now showing us that the spending programs and the tax increases that came in the latter part of the ``New Deal'' kept us in the Depression, didn't get us out of the Depression.

Mr. CARTER. Y'all may have talked about this earlier. This legislation would create, according to the Democrats, 3.7 million jobs. Price tag is $838 billion. This is approximately $280,000 per job. And it's estimated that the average income that would be derived--

Mr. CARTER. Well, I would hope that we're not all socialists. I have a young man whose wife is from Canada, who works for me. And I'll tell you, he said to me, he said, you know what? I love my wife dearly, but I didn't want to go live in Canada with those socialists. Please don't bring it to our country. So there are people that are really concerned deeply about socialism.

Mr. CARTER. And if the gentleman would yield for one more thing.

Mr. CARTER. I might question that last statement just a little bit. But I do thank the gentleman for yielding. We've got the package back that is back from the Senate. And we were hopeful that we would see better news. And actually we may have seen worse news. And now we're at the level of the conference and we've got things coming out of the conference which we see as basically we have got a version of the House stimulus package which we all got to see before we sent it over to the Senate. A lot of people around here don't like Ronald Reagan. I happen to think he is one of the best men that ever lived. But he made some statements that the American people understand. One of my favorite statements that Ronald Reagan said was ``the closest thing to eternal life that you will ever see in your lifetime is a Federal program.'' Now I think we should step back and look at this ``stimulus package,'' this ``temporary infusion of capital to make our markets work'' and find that we are creating 32 new programs. That is a potential for 32 new eternal lives.

Mr. CARTER. They never die. They continue to grow. If the gentleman will yield back.

Mr. CARTER. What is very interesting is that as many of you can remember, do you know the Food Stamp program that we started out with was supposed to be a $25 million program and never would get above that? And in this package alone, when we look at food stamps, over $17 billion is put into the food stamps in the stimulus bill, a 32 percent increase over the just-increased program which was increased by 23 percent in October of last year. Now that is one of those programs that we talk about that has eternal life. It has gone from $25 million to just the increase in this package of $17 billion. This is the kind of thing that I think the American people will look at it and get a clearer picture of what we're talking about when we talk about spending $1 trillion. The example that we all learned and are giving now is what is $1 trillion? If you take 1 million brand new $1,000 bills, if you take $1,000 bills and you stack them up until it is 4 inches high, you have $1 million. A $1 trillion would be 63 miles high. So, this spending, as the people look at it, they need to realize what we are getting ourselves into. And every dollar is borrowed money. We already got credit issues. We supposedly were going to fix it with $750 billion, which we don't seem to have got to. And now we're going for another trillion. When does it stop? And I yield back.

Mr. CARTER. Well, that's a good question. If you'd yield back. That's the kind of thing that we ought to be thinking about. And let's be clear. Some of the things that they're spending money on are good causes and they're causes that ought to be in the regular budgetary process which, by the way, comes up very shortly. We should be getting a budget from the Obama administration within the next couple of weeks. This is all above that.

Mr. CARTER. Sometimes when you hear the term ``socialism,'' those of us my age and your age, we know what we're talking about. Young people really don't know what you're saying. But they do know people interfering with their lives. Because quite frankly, whether they were going to college and paying exorbitant fees to go to school, or whatever it is, as they have moved into the workforce, they see that the government is available to interfere with their lives. And the real issue here is we're growing government and we're giving government the ability to interfere more and more in the lives of people. One of the things that people are very upset about was a proposal, I am not sure whether they're going to be in the conference committee or not, but those proposals about having an organization of the government make decisions as to what health care elderly people should be allowed to have and not be allowed to have, who will be allowed to live and who will be allowed to die, that kind of rationing of health care that is at least being looked at and discussed should frighten everybody in the age group, the young age group right now feel like they're invincible and immortal, but some day they're going to be reaching the golden years. And they must realize that not their family or their loved ones will make those decisions, but Uncle Sam, through some agency, will make the decision as to whether you live or die. These are serious issues.

Mr. CARTER. Also I hope that the American people understand, those of us who oppose things like omnibus appropriations bills, and I serve on the Appropriations Committee, there's a reason we don't, we want to divide these appropriations bills out and deal with each subject separately, because it prevents the hiding of things in massive bills. When you put a bill on the desk that looks like all the Manhattan, all of the Greater New York City phone books put together, and you're supposed to figure out what's hidden in there that shouldn't be a part of this, it is a tremendous task. And this is an exact example of just that.

Mr. CARTER. And that's the whole issue. This is a massive, voluminous spending bill. You know, we were all so proud, I've heard President Clinton brag quite a bit about the fact that welfare reform that took place back in the 1990s. And an integral part of that welfare reform was the requirement that people go to work. I mean, that's kind of what made the new welfare reform start to get people off welfare for the first time in decades. Right now, in this bill, there are provisions which are going to take away that requirement of work on welfare reform, which means it's going to put back into the old welfare system, that was a clearly failed system, I've heard President Clinton stand up and say he takes full credit for the welfare reform that took place in the 1990s, even though some would argue that it was done by the Republican Congress. Irrespective, we shouldn't be taking that away.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, today, in fact less than 1 hour to 1\1/2\ hours ago, I rose on the floor of this House to bring forward a privileged resolution asking for the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to step down or be removed until such time as the ethical problems that have been raised about Mr. Rangel could be addressed by the Ethics Committee and resolved. I did this out of no malice for Mr. Rangel; but, rather, I did this and have stated publicly that it is important that we raise the level of the ethics standards of this House to a level that was inspired to us by our Speaker. And, if we raise our level of ethics and each individual in this House takes on themselves to stand up for an ethical Congress, we will have an ethical Congress, and maybe the people of the United States will have a greater respect for the individual Members of Congress. It should be embarrassing and disheartening to every hard-working man and woman in this House, and the House is full of hard-working men and women on both sides of the aisle, that the American public view us as unethical and maybe worse. Our approval rating at one time during the last Congress was at 8 percent. They say if your approval rating is below 20 percent, the only people that still like you are your friends and your relatives. Well, at 8 percent, you have got to worry about your relatives. You may not even have them liking you anymore. To me, I looked at that, and I have been in this Congress now for 6 years, starting my 7th year, I know that there are a lot of really fine people in this Congress on both sides of the aisle and I don't think that they deserve that kind of rating. But, quite frankly, the atmosphere that has been created over the last several years has created an atmosphere where people think that we are evil people. And I don't believe that we are evil people, but I do believe that sometimes somebody has to stand up and say, if it isn't right, it isn't right. And I have decided that I am going to do that. And I think I am going to be joined by others who are going to do it, and I hope eventually we are all going to stand up and say: If it isn't right, it isn't right, and I don't care who did it. But I want to start off by telling you that what happened in this privileged resolution that I brought forward today, which, if it had gone forward in the privileged resolution, we would have had 1 hour of debate on each side to discuss this issue and come to a resolution, just like maybe a jury would come to a resolution in a courtroom back home, where we would hear what is out there, what has been said on this House floor by Mr. Rangel, what the evidence seems to be; that we would learn about what is going on, and what would be best for the House under these circumstances. But, unfortunately, a procedural occurrence interfered or intervened. The majority made a motion to table that resolution. The majority prevailed, as they would be expected to with the sizeable majority count that they have in this House, and so that resolution was laid upon the table; which basically means to the average guy that they stuck it aside and we won't take it up. And that is where it is going to stay, I suppose, just as previous resolutions have been tabled and they don't get taken up. So I have this hour, and hopefully some of my friends will be by as we go through this hour, and we are going to talk about ethics. And I want to first point out this poster right here, which I would hope can be seen. The Speaker of this House, Nancy Pelosi, on November 8, 2006, made this statement, which was quoted by the Washington Post: ``The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.'' That is a 200-plus year history of this United States, and the goal of the 110th Congress, the standards set by our Speaker was to be the most open, most ethical Congress, and the most honest Congress in the history of the United States. That is a big package to carry, there is no doubt about that, but it is a goal that we ought to have. I would argue that, since this speech was made, we have made very little progress down that line. But something else much more recent to what we are doing right now is what the President of the United States said basically just last week: ``I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics. I don't want to send the message to the American people that there are two sets of standards, one for the powerful people, and one for the ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes.'' That is a quote to CNN by President Barack Obama, February 3, 2009, just last week. I honor our President for that kind of standard that he sets for his administration and for this government. There are people who would say: Mr. Carter, you raised these issues about the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, about Charlie Rangel, for political purposes. You did this because you wanted to attack a powerful leader in the House of Representatives, and this is all about politics. I will point out that I stated when this all started that I first wrote a letter to Chairman Rangel and asked Chairman Rangel if he would address the issue of having paid his taxes, if he would address paying his penalties and interest so this would all go away, so he wouldn't be treated by two standards, one standard for the powerful and one standard for the ordinary person. But I got no response from that letter. A copy of that letter was sent to the Speaker of the House, and I got no response there. And then you ask, why would I stand up and start talking about this stuff? The New York Times on September 14, 2008 pointed out: ``Mounting embarrassment for taxpayers and Congress makes it imperative that Representative Charles Rangel step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems are investigated.'' Now, this is one of the most liberal, Democrat leaning newspapers in the country who is saying there are issues in Mr. Rangel's past that, in their opinion, the editorial page's opinion, would require that he step down while he is being investigated. And that is all I have ever really asked that he do. It might be for just 2 days, 3 days. Who knows how quickly the Ethics Committee will come out with a resolution. It might be a few weeks. But it would look a standard to the American people that would say: You are right, this is not behind closed doors. This is heads up. They are talking about stuff that is important. And that is why we raise this. So I am going to put those two things out here to start this conversation. Our President and our Speaker, Democrats both, have made the point that they want to make sure that there is no one standard for the powerful and one standard for the ordinary, but each will be treated fairly. They have set a standard that they will be the most honest, open, ethical Congress in history. They have set a standard, and it has been pointed out by the New York Times that that standard is not being met when it comes to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Now, all I am trying to do here tonight, and I am asking others to help me with, is just say to Mr. Rangel: Mr. Rangel, I highly respect you. I hope that you would realize what the American people perceive of us as a body because of issues that are being raised by allegedly the most important newspaper in the land. And we think that, for the good of this House, you would step aside, however briefly, until these issues are resolved. And, quite frankly, that is what this resolution was about today. And I certainly didn't do it in any spirit of meanness. I thought it was the right and the proper thing to do. And so I basically am pleading my case to the American people and to this House in saying that it is important that you understand, I have no ill will against Mr. Rangel, but I do have ill will about bringing down the ethical responsibility of this House. I have my friend, Mr. King from Iowa, who has joined me here. He may have some things to say about the subject of ethics. And we are going to just ride along here. I recognize you for the amount of time you wish to consume.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. This all started when I raised an issue about Mr. Rangel's failure to pay his taxes and then his announcing that he had paid his taxes and he will pay penalties and interest if penalties and interest were assessed. That jumped off the page at me, because I'm from one of the best towns in America, Round Rock, Texas. I grew up with Round Rock. It started off with 2,500 people. And now it's a little over 100,000, I guess. I practiced law in Round Rock and was a judge in the community that oversaw Round Rock as part of that Williamson County community. And for more times than I can count, I have been involved in situations where people have had to deal with issues that deal with the IRS. When I was a judge, we had lots of family cases where we had to resolve IRS liens and other things that were a part of the division of the property between parties. I used to represent clients. I had one in particular who was constantly having issues with the IRS. And they were putting padlocks on his doors and seizing his bank accounts. And he was calling his CPA, who was a good friend of mine who used to office with me. And we would try to keep him out of trouble. Now, one of the things that was onerous that came up on every one of these people were the penalties that are assessed by the IRS. And when you fail to pay your taxes for long periods of times, you will have penalties. But let me point out to you, if you don't pay your taxes on April 15, and you choose to pay your taxes on August 15 or October 15, you're going to immediately receive a bill from the IRS for the interest difference between April 15 and October 15 and a penalty for failure to pay on time. That is what happens. That is just as regular as clockwork. And I think all Americans know that that is the way they get treated when they're dealing with the mighty IRS. So the first question that came to my mind was that he claimed to have paid his taxes way back in I believe August or July, and yet no penalties and interest had been assessed. That I didn't understand. So that is why I wrote him a letter and said, why don't you contact them so we can get this out of the way and ask them to assess penalties and interest? And I received no reply. And then what I was trying to point out in that by saying that this was not right, as I said, okay, if it's good enough for the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, then it's good enough for every American citizen. And I introduced a bill called the Rangel Rule, which said that if you have missed your taxes and you pay them and you don't want to be assessed penalties and interest for failing to pay on time, write on your form, ``Rangel Rule,'' and you will be excused those penalties and interest. You will have the ability to claim the same kind of treatment that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel, seems to be getting from the IRS. And why would I want to do this? Because look what our President of the United States says. ``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.'' That is exactly what I have been trying to say with the Rangel Rule. There shouldn't be two standards, one for someone who has been elected and sent up here by the people, and he gets a bigger break than the guy back in his district who runs a garage and doesn't pay his taxes on time, and somebody padlocks his garage and seizes his bank account. So this is a fairness issue. And it is an ethical issue. But when we had the statement by Nancy Pelosi about the most honest, open and ethical Congress in history, then we all of a sudden had a lot of things that occurred. I want to go through some of those with you. And the first one I suppose is now almost old news. ``Federal investigators are targeting the Democratic Congressman, 58, for allegedly demanding cash and other favors for himself and relatives, in exchange for using his congressional clout for arranging African business deals.'' It goes on to talk about Congressman Jefferson of New Orleans and the $90,000 in cash that was found in his freezer. This was in the Washington Post way back on February 16, 2006. That popped up just shortly after the Speaker had talked to us about honest, open and ethical. That issue was already up in the previous election. Ultimately, that has never been resolved, although it is in the courts right now. And it certainly will be resolved by the courts, but the people of New Orleans resolved it this year in the election process. Mr. Jefferson was defeated. But he still has the right to be heard in court. And as far as this judge is concerned, he is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the State has the burden of proof of making that proof. I stand behind the standards that the Constitution set for all innocent people. And I stand behind it for Mr. Jefferson. That is the first piece of news we have got. Here is one from January 4, 2009, last month. A grand jury is investigating how a company that contributed to Richardson's campaign won a lucrative New Mexico State contract. Richardson says he and his administration acted properly, but that the investigation would force a delay in the confirmation process. He was being nominated for Secretary of Commerce. He says he could not, in good conscience, ask the President-elect to delay important Commerce Department work in the face of the economic situation the Nation is facing. And so he withdrew his name for the Commerce Secretary, which was the right thing to do. But I point out that as we set a standard, reinforced by our new President, bless his heart, I appreciate him for that, and yet these issues pop up today. And we could go on and on. But let's just stop right there. That is two. We got 20 down here, or close to it. Mr. King, those issues are issues that we've seen and we've known about, and one of them is old and one of them is new. I will yield to you if you would like to make a comment.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The best of all worlds would be, in my opinion, if we who are Members of this House, would step up and say, if there's issues raised that cast impropriety upon the House or the individual Member, that they say I'm going to step back until this issue is resolved. And then I think the conscience of this House should be the Ethics Committee. And I think the conscience of this House, even though that Ethics Committee is exactly equally divided between Republicans and Democrats, I think the world that we would hope this honest, ethical House would live in would be a world where, when you get that heavy responsibility on being on the Ethics Committee, you're willing to say, I'm going to do what we ask juries to do. I'm going to look at and listen to the evidence, and I'm going to make a decision. I'm going to try my dead level best not to deadlock and put off issues, but to resolve issues as they come before me. It's a heavy burden. I'm not saying it's not. I would admit that. But, you know, when you choose to police yourself, then each individual Member has a duty, to some extent, to police their own personal self. I will point out that we had two Members, Republicans in the last Congress, John Doolittle and Rick Renzi, both of whom have allegations against them that had not been resolved and, to my knowledge have not been resolved. Both of them chose to step down from their respective committees until the allegations were resolved for the good of the House of Representatives. Now, I'm not saying they're noble and wonderful. I personally think the world of both of them. But the bottom line is, they did what was good for this body. And we've got issues that are getting raised. It's not my goal in life to tear down this House. I'm telling you, and I tell the American people that might be watching tonight, the people that serve in the House of Representatives are hardworking folks. Right now, here, it's 10 minutes after 8, 10 minutes after 9, excuse me, and there's plenty of people that are working right now, and they started this morning, probably at 6. So don't think that these aren't hardworking, honest, trying-to-do- the-very-best-they-can people that serve in this House. And we owe a responsibility to each other not to bring down this House. We have been doing that, by my knowledge, the last 4 years. We have run campaigns, the purpose being to paint the whole House, or at least the whole party in the House, as criminals, as corrupt people, when you're only talking about individuals. Each of these instances we talk about are individual issues, with that individual Member or that individual cabinet appointee or cabinet member. They are not issues of the government as a whole. But the responsibility lies upon those who lead. Mr. King was pointing out just a few minutes ago about Timothy Geithner. I have here a copy of the International Monetary Fund receipt that Mr. Geithner signed when he received the money from the International Monetary Fund that he was supposed to pay in taxes. At the bottom it has an admonition and roughly an oath which says, in accordance with the General Administrative Order Number 5, Revision 7, section 703, I wish to apply for tax allowance of U.S. Federal and State income taxes, and the difference between the self-employed and employed obligations of the U.S. Social Security tax which I will pay on my fund income. I authorize the fund or any of its staff members designated by it for the purpose to ascertain to the appropriate tax authorities whether tax returns were received. I certify that information contained herein is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I will pay the taxes for which I have received tax allowance payments from the fund. I certify that if any data provided on this application changes, I will immediately report such changes to the fund; and it's signed by the gentleman, Mr. Geithner. I bring that up because he signed a pledge to this fund that, give me the money and I'll pay my taxes. They gave him the money. It's been reported that one payment was $32,000. That was reported in the newspapers, and you can take them as a valid source or not take them as a valid source. But back where I come from, $32,000 is a real pocketful of money and you don't forget $32,000. So the issue that was raised is a serious one when the man who is taking us, hopefully, safely down the path to resolve our economic crisis for I believe it's four consecutive years, received the tax money he was supposed to submit to the various taxing entities and he did not do so, and only did so when he was about to be confirmed before the Senate as Secretary of the Treasury. You know what? That just don't smell right. And I think that's what the folks back home are saying. And I think the President needs to, he has to think about his statement; no difference between the powerful and the ordinary working folks, because it certainly looks like there's a difference in that case. I don't know the man. I haven't got any reason to be mad at him or to even want him to--I want him to succeed. Why wouldn't we? He's practically got our whole Nation sitting here in the palm of his hands, and we want him to succeed. But if we're going to talk about what's right, what's ethical and honest and open, we've got to raise these issues. We've got to put sunlight on these issues. And that's what we are doing and what we're going to be doing now and forever, until we get this back to being a Congress that is recognized by the American people as honest and ethical. I see that my friend Mr. Burgess is here. He's a good friend from Texas, one of my classmates. We came into this body together. He is a man whom I highly respect. He has a great amount of knowledge about our health care issues and about health care problems, and I believe that Mike Burgess and others will be the people who come up with the solutions. I will yield whatever time the gentleman wishes to consume.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have left?

Mr. CARTER. Thank you very much, and I thank my friend for coming in and for joining me in this hour as we discuss this matter. In my lifetime, I have had to make a lot of tough decisions and have had to do a lot of tough things. I was telling one of my colleagues on the floor of the House today that I can remember the first time that I had to look a person in the eye and sentence him to death under Texas law. My heart was beating 100 beats a minute, and my blood pressure was probably through the roof. It was a very difficult situation to face. It's just as difficult a situation for me when I respect the Members of this House to raise these issues, but I've spent all of my adult life in the business of trying to just bring fairness and truth to the forefront in whatever I've done, both as a judge and now as a Congressman. I am no saint. Anybody who thinks I'm standing up here saying I've not made mistakes in my life doesn't know me or doesn't know Texas or doesn't know the life we live. We've all made mistakes in our lives, and mistakes can be honest mistakes, but this is an institution. It pains me to think that little boys and little girls who might be in elementary school are hearing on television and at their breakfast tables comments from their parents: ``Everybody in Washington is a crook. Everybody in Washington is lazy and gets special treatment. They're all a bunch of 'no goods.' We ought to throw every one of them out.'' They hear those things about Members of Congress, and maybe it applies to some, but it doesn't apply to the vast majority on both sides of the aisle. I can say that. So we're being painted with a brush, and that brush is full of paint because the media continually keeps it full of paint, and it's out there, painting us, until we're the black-hearted people of this world. Yet, when I was a little boy many, many, many years ago, you know, we revered Members of Congress. When I went to school, all I heard was what a wonderful, great, democratic institution it was, the most revered institution on Earth--the United States Congress--and what wonderful, great men and women served. Do you know what? They were the same kind of men and women who serve today. They weren't any different. They weren't any more dedicated than the people who serve here today. They were the same kind of people. I, that little boy in the first grade, was hearing Congress discussed at my mama and daddy's breakfast table. Even when my mother and father disagreed with something that Congress was doing, they still acknowledged them as special people--giving to the democracy that we hold dear, giving of their time and their talent and, quite frankly, giving of their lives, some of them, their very lives. I know that, today, we celebrated 50 years of Chairman Dingell's service to this House--the longest serving Member in the history of the Congress. So you can clearly say that John Dingell gave his entire adult life to this institution. That should be revered in the eyes of everybody, and that should not be tainted with somebody's saying, ``dirty deeds are done by every Member of Congress; they're all evil and no good,'' because my colleagues and friends everywhere, that is not true, and that is why we have to raise issues on ourselves. We are a body that has chosen as part of its governing unit a committee whose sole purpose is to judge ourselves. There are other institutions that do this. The bar associations in most cities of most States have bar committees that judge members of the bar, who are the lawyers. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the medical community judges itself and raises ethical issues on the medical community. I believe, in the accounting community, the accountants judge the ethics of the accounting community. So we're not unusual by setting up a group of our Members to judge our Members, but we have more of a standard to live with than that. Our standard should be that we judge ourselves, that we try not to even appear to have committed some kind of impropriety. Avoid the appearance of impropriety. That is where we need to go. That is where we need to be. When things arise, we need to raise these issues, and we need to talk about them and talk about them not out of hate or out of politics. We need to talk about them out of love for the institution and say to ourselves, ``What is my part of this, and what should I do?'' When I wrote the letter to Chairman Rangel, I think that's kind of what I was saying. Mr. Chairman, this is the way ordinary folks get treated. You're not getting treated that way. Why don't you ask them to treat you that way? That's all I asked. I didn't say, ``Resign.'' I didn't say, ``Support the Rangel Rule.'' I said that. Then I said, ``If you can't, then will you support my Rangel Rule?'' That was the purpose. That was to remind him that we have an issue here, an issue of unfairness. I think I'm going to be willing to give back some time tonight because I don't want to go off on another position that we can't complete, but we'll be back, and we'll be talking some more about ethics. I would remind this body as a group that we all have a duty and a responsibility to try to live up to the standards that have been pronounced by the Speaker and now by the President of the United States that we be the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history and that we not have one standard for the powerful and another standard for the ordinary folks. Those are good goals to accomplish. I am going to step forward during this period of time in my life and try to get this body to accomplish those goals. If I can do that, I will go home and smile to my folks back home and say, ``I did the best I could.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution as noticed.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Whereas, the gentleman from New York, Charles B. Rangel, the fourth most senior Member of the House of Representatives, serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a position of considerable power and influence within the House of Representatives; and, Whereas, clause one of rule 23 of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, ``A Member, Delegate, Resident Commission, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House;'' Whereas, The New York Times reported on September 5, 2008, that, ``Representative Charles B. Rangel has earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988, but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns, according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.''; and, Whereas, in an article in the September 5, 2008 edition of The New York Times, his attorney confirmed that Representative Rangel's annual congressional Financial Disclosure statements failed to disclose the rental income from his resort villa; and, Whereas, The New York Times reported on September 6, 2008 that, ``Representative Charles B. Rangel paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage extended to him to buy a villa at a beachfront resort in the Dominican Republic, according to Mr. Rangel's lawyer and records from the resort. The loan, which was extended to Mr. Rangel in 1988, was originally to be paid back over seven years at a rate of 10.5 percent. But within two years, interest on the loan was waived for Mr. Rangel.''; and, Whereas, clause 5(a)(2)(A) of House Rule 25 defines a gift as, ``. . . a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value'' and prohibits the acceptance of such gifts except in limited circumstances; and, Whereas, Representative Rangel's acceptance of thousands of dollars in interest forgiveness is a violation of the House gift ban; and, Whereas, Representative Rangel's failure to disclose the aforementioned gifts and income on his Personal Financial Disclosure Statements violates House rules and federal law; and, Whereas, Representative Rangel's failure to report the aforementioned gifts and income on federal, state and local tax returns is a violation of the tax laws of those jurisdictions; and, Whereas, the Committee on Ways and Means, which Representative Rangel chairs, has jurisdiction over the United States Tax Code; and, Whereas, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct first announced on July 31, 2008 that it was reviewing allegations of misconduct by Representative Rangel; and, Whereas, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on September 24, 2008 that it had established an investigative subcommittee in the matter of Representative Rangel; and, Whereas, The New York Times reported on November 24, 2008 that, ``Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited [Nabors Industries] an oil drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.''; and, Whereas, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on December 9, 2008 that it had expanded the jurisdiction of the aforementioned investigative subcommittee to examine the allegations related to Representative Rangel's involvement with Nabors Industries; and, Whereas, Roll Call newspaper reported on September 15, 2008 that, ``The inconsistent reports are among myriad errors, discrepancies and unexplained entries on Rangel's personal disclosure forms over the past eight years that make it almost impossible to get a clear picture of the Ways and Means chairman's financial dealings.''; and, Whereas, Roll Call newspaper reported on September 16, 2008 that, ``Rangel said he would hire a `forensic accountant' to review all of his disclosure forms going back 20 years, and to provide a report to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which Rangel said will then make public.''; and, Whereas, nearly five months after Representative Rangel pledged to provide a public forensic accounting of his tax and federal financial disclosure records, he has failed to do so; and, Whereas, an editorial in The New York Times on September 15, 2008 stated, ``Mounting embarrassment for taxpayers and Congress makes it imperative that Representative Charles Rangel step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems are investigated.''; and, Whereas, on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited ``high ethical standards'' in a letter to Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson, Whereas, by the conduct giving rise to this resolution, Representative Charles B. Rangel has dishonored himself and brought discredit to the House; and, Therefore, be it Resolved, Upon adoption of this resolution and pending completion of the investigation into his affairs by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Representative Rangel is hereby removed as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.