Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being recognized for this time.

I have been coming down here now for 2 or 3 weeks talking about fact that we have some ethical issues that need to be resolved, and that is something I think is important. I am going to try to frame that so you can understand why I think it is important.

Tonight, we have been talking about Mr. Obama's budget. I just enjoyed immensely the argument that was just made a few minutes ago about energy. And I really wish, sometime it would really be nice up here if we could do one of these things where we talk back and forth and ask questions. I would like to address that a little bit, because it is a big part of this budget. It is going to be this huge tax program that is being put together, and I would like some questions answered.

It seems to me that what I heard argued just a few minutes ago was that we have a real crisis with carbon, carbon dioxide. I think most Americans know that we are major producers of carbon dioxide. If you don't think so, take a big breath and then let it out, and you will have just produced carbon dioxide. So I think we realize that it is kind of a natural process that is going on. But if we need to fix that, then we need to slow down the amount of carbon dioxide going out into the atmosphere. And as I understand the proposal is that let's say you have a widget plant that is belching out carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in record numbers because it is burning, let's just use that horrible substance they were discussing, coal. And even though it is being scrubbed for the sulfur dioxide, which the Clean Air Act dealt with, it is still putting out carbon dioxide, the substance that is the part of the fuel of photosynthesis in plants across the entire global, including the microscopic plants that grow in the oceans of the world, and it is just too much.

Now, the plan they are proposing in the President's budget, as I understand it, is that they will have to pay a tax that the government would say this is the amount of carbon dioxide we are going to allow to come out of one source, and the government would determine what that ceiling would be. It is called a cap. And then they would say, every bit that you put out above that cap, we are going to tax you on it because we are going to use the tax money to acquire some kind of credits that the people are selling that don't pollute. Or maybe they are not even going to that. Maybe they are just saying, we are going to tax you so we can do research and development on new energy, which is what they seem to be saying tonight. If that be the case, then how does that tax stop that carbon emission out of that plant? I don't get that. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

Now, I guess, yes, you could stop it if the tax were so onerous that the plant owner said the product that I am producing, and let's say on that particular plant rather than it being widgets it is electricity, that this is going to make my cost of electricity so onerous that I won't be able to sell my electricity so I will just shut down my electricity

plant. That is the way economy works. At some point in time when the cost is such that you can't make a profit from the product that you are producing, maybe you would shut it down. I don't understand how that would help particularly the energy problems of the United States, and I don't think that is what would be envisioned.

I think what would really be envisioned is that the evil corporation, if you will, would have to pay the tax and eat the tax. In other words, it would come out of their profits. Now, the evil corporation is really a group of American citizens and maybe other country citizens who have bought stock in the evil corporation, and they have invested their money in it in hopes that they would make a profit. And so is the solution that you think the corporation is going to do is that this tax that has been put on this coal emission is going to be paid by the corporation, which means by the stockholders, the owners, so they are just going the take less profit. At what point in time are the owners, that is the stockholders, going to be happy with their profit being reduced until they make no profit? I don't think very long. So then they would close down our power plant. But that is not what the solution is, either.

The reality is, and it is in every case in every industry demonstrated every day across the world, is that tax will then go to the consumer of the product that that company is selling. Therefore, the cap tax we just heard about from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be paid by the consumer. Unless you are sitting in the dark watching television by candlelight, you are probably using electricity in your home. I say that tongue in cheek, because I guess you could watch television with a battery. But the facts are you are burning electricity every day, and you are going to pay the tax.

Now, they are going to put a tax on oil and gas products because they create carbon emissions, CO2, the same as you create carbon emissions, by breathing. So they are going to tax the oil and gas industry. And guess who is going to pay the tax; the oil and gas industry is going to pass that tax on to the consumer. So if it is a nickel on a gallons of gasoline, the nickel is going to be yours to pay. If it is 50 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the 50 cents is going to be yours to pay, and the price of gasoline is going up.

The price of gasoline is going up.

There is a bigger picture here you need to see. If you could look around this room, this gigantic House of Representatives, you would see leather and wooden seats, beautiful carpeting, gorgeous lights everywhere, all these various paintings and tapestries on the walls, glass, brass, steel, concrete and stone. All of that is in this room right here. How do you think it got here? How do you think the wallpaper up there got here? Did somebody bring it up here with a horse? Did they pack it on their back? No. They put it in a truck or on a train. And that truck or train delivered everything in this room to this building to be installed by the workers who got here in automobiles and pickups. So everything in this room was brought to you by motor fuel, including diesel fuel that burns in our trains that pull our freight cars. So everything in this room was brought to you by diesel or gasoline. So if tomorrow you were rebuilding this room, and if our new and wonderful ``nobody in the middle class will have to pay tax increase'' that we were just told by our colleagues, if that is there, then if it costs the wallpaper people extra money to get the wallpaper here because the price of diesel has gone up 20 cents a gallon, then the price of wallpaper is going up 20 cents a roll, or some equivalent, to make it up. If the brass manufacturers, if they are not using any kind of fuel to make brass, but they are shipping it here somehow magically, they are going to use diesel, because that is what drives our trucks. And the brass is going up, the concrete is going up, and the leather is going up. Everything in this room is going up because we have placed a new tax on fuel.

Now, is any of that fuel not being burned? No. That fuel is still being burned. Is there carbon going into the atmosphere? Yes. There is carbon going into the atmosphere. Guess who is paying this tax? You are. And you're going to pay it if you make $10,000 a year, and you're going to pay it if you make $10 million a year because you're a consumer. And so the tax is going to be passed down to the consumer. So when you say this is not a tax on the middle class, it is a farce.

That comes back to the issue of people need to make trustworthy statements when they say things around here. People need to explain things in a clear picture so the public can understand it. Then the American public needs to decide what is right and what is wrong. To me, I would like anybody to explain to me how this stuff would get here if it wasn't for a diesel truck or a train. I would like anybody to tell me how that would happen. Or maybe they fly an airplane in here on air freight, which is even more expensive and which is going to have an even bigger tax on it because it is a fuel guzzler and it creates carbon.

So what we have been told here tonight is that there is going to be no tax on the middle class. Yet, people who do something that I wouldn't do for a living, but sit around and calculate an estimate of what these things might cost, are saying that this new energy tax, this tax on energy is going to cost every household in America $3,128 annually. Now maybe for somebody making $250,000 a year, that hurts a little bit. But, boy, it hurts the heck out of the teacher in Round Rock, Texas, making $32,000 a year. It hurts the heck out of that truck driver that drives that truck that maybe makes $30,000 a year or $35,000 a year. If he is really a hustler, he makes $50,000 a year. Everything he is going to use, plus the fuel he is burning, is going to cost him more. And the freight charges are going up.

So, wake up. You can't put a tax on something that everybody uses and not expect everybody to have to pay for the tax. It is just that simple. This is not rocket science. This is basic logic 101.

The reason we need to have ethical issues resolved in this House is because the American people need to learn to trust us to try to shoot straight with them. And those people who don't have a track record of shooting straight, at least you can make that conclusion because of accusations made against them, maybe you should worry about their leadership. Now, the question I would ask myself and you--and what my whole position has been on ethics issues is that these ethics issues need to be resolved so that you know you can trust when somebody stands up at that mic or that one over there or this one right here and tells you something, and you say, yeah, but what about that accusation? Hey, maybe it's not true. Okay, maybe it is not true. But it ought to be resolved. This body ought to resolve accusations that are made against the people that they have done something that is unethical.

Now, I'm not making the accusations. I'm telling you that the newspapers are making the accusations, the talk shows are making the accusations, the TV news at 6 o'clock is making the accusations, and people that claim to be the watchdogs of American politics are making the accusations. I just want them resolved. I want the Ethics Committee or the courts or whoever it takes to resolve the issues to resolve the issues, so that when somebody stands up here and tells you there is not going to be a tax on the middle class, but we are going to tax every kind of carbon-burned fuel, when 90 percent of the fuel, probably 95 percent of the fuel used for every purpose on the face of this Earth is carbon based, then do you know what? You're going to say, ``I would like to know if that is somebody that is very trustworthy that I ought to be listening to.''

I hope that is not convoluted logic. But I sit here and ask you, if you assume that what these gentlemen said tonight was true, and they are going to use this stuff for research to come up with alternative fuels, you tell me when is the first truck going to be invented with an electric motor big enough to haul freight down the highways of the United States? When is it going to happen? Nobody is talking about that. They are not talking about it because the electric engine that it would take to haul the loads of freight down the interstate to bring stuff to your home so you have the goods and the services of this Nation, that electrical engine would be as big as that

podium or bigger than the Speaker's tonight. In fact, they even make some electric engines that size in my district for ships in the sea. And they are gigantic, half as big as this room, to get the kind of torque, to get the kind of power out of electricity to pull a heavy load. So, think when you hear these things being talked about, how long will it take to get to a point that goods and services can be brought to you the way they are brought to you now without this tax being imposed upon you? I would submit, it is not decades. It may be centuries.

So, I'm a little off the subject. But when you start talking about this budget, this is the kind of thing we want to talk about. Can you honestly think that you're getting a straight shot when you hear about some of this stuff?

I'm very happy to see my friend from North Carolina. She is one of the real tough ladies in this House. Virginia Foxx is here to join me. And I'm glad to have her. I will yield whatever time the gentlelady may use up.

Let me point out, I have a poster board here. Now some might think I have been picking on Chairman Rangel too much, and I don't intend to do that, but this is to make my point. Chairman Rangel is in charge of taxation. That is his job. He is the tax man of this House.

We have a little quote here from a real conservative news source we all love and adore, the New York Times, January 3, 2009, ``Rangel Pushed for a Donation; Insurer Pushed for a Tax Cut.'' It is written by David Kocieniewski. ``On April 21, 2008, Representative Charles B. Rangel met with officials of the American International Group, the now- troubled insurance giant, to ask for a donation to a school of public service that City College of New York was building in his honor,'' and I will point out named after him.

``Mr. Rangel had already helped secure a $5 million pledge for the project from a foundation controlled by Maurice R. Greenberg, one of the company's largest shareholders and its former chief executive. And CCNY officials, according to the school's own records, had high hopes for AIG--a donation of perhaps as much as $10 million.''

Some may have heard of AIG. It has been a little bit in the news lately.

Now my point is that is an accusation made by the New York Times, not by me, not by any Member of this House. That is an accusation made by the New York Times that should be resolved because it is about our number one tax man, and our number one tax man along with the President of the United States is going to be championing the Democrat budget of $3.6 trillion, a number that almost defies imagination.

We have gotten used to trillions in the last 60 days because we have seen lots of them. They are everywhere. This administration is throwing trillions around like tennis balls at Wimbledon and we are sitting here looking at a new little slight glitch of $3.6 trillion. I would think that the average American looking at this budget would like to know that the people that designed it and the people that put it together shoot straight, deal ethically with issues. And they would like to know that, but they have an accusation from the New York Times that says contrary to that.

So is there a place to resolve that? Yes, we have one. It is called the Ethics Committee. But there is no action out of the Ethics Committee. It just kind of sits there.

So I guess our famous Rangel rule which now is on everybody's tongue about special privileges for Mr. Rangel, I guess we add this to the Rangel rule. I don't know what else to do with it. If you have accusations and the Ethics Committee doesn't act, then they

just go away. Trust me, everything is okay because the Ethics Committee hasn't acted. Well, I think they should.

I will start, beauty over the beast. I have both Michele Bachmann and Lynn Westmoreland here, and so I will turn to Michele Bachmann to talk about the budget and about trusting those who are going to be giving us these numbers and these ideas and shouldn't we have the ethical issues resolved as they lead this Congress down a $3.6 trillion path.

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

I haven't heard a peep out of them. Just recently, we have another story that has come out from the Congressional Quarterly, ``Waters Calls TARP Meeting for her Husband's Bank.'' This is by Bennett Roth, part of CQ staff.

``Watchdog groups claimed Waters took inappropriate actions on behalf of OneUnited Bank which received financial assistance from the Federal Government last fall. Waters, a senior member of the Financial Services Committee which oversees banking issues, last year requested a meeting between Treasury Department officials and representatives of minority- owned banks, including OneUnited on whose board her husband, Sydney Williams, had previously served. He also held stock in the bank.''

That's not our accusation, that's an accusation by a publication that is read regularly in the halls of Congress and informs us of what is going on. That is an issue that should be addressed by the body that is required to address it, the Ethics Committee.

Is that unethical behavior? Possibly not. Possibly it is. But she is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing

and Community Opportunity, which means that whatever housing there may be in the Obama bill, this $3.6 trillion Obama bill--and Lord, for that much money there ought to be a couple of houses in there anyway--then if that is the case, she would be the spokesman for the housing attitudes of the U.S. Government of the majority party, the Democratic Party--who run this place, by the way. If nobody gets it yet, the majority rules in the House of Representatives. So when you have 38 more votes than the other guys, you win, they lose. That's the way it works. If you've got one more vote and everybody stays with you, you win, they lose.

So they own all of this. This Bush bashing that we hear around here, wake up. The man is hanging out in Crawford chasing cattle; he's not doing this job anymore. This is your job, the Democratic Party's job. They are doing this job here, with the leadership of Barack Obama, their President. He, with their help, proposed $3.6 trillion.

And when it comes to housing, we must rely upon Maxine Waters, the leader of that subcommittee. That issue ought to be resolved. I think that's important.

This is the whole point of this whole thing. You know, this banking thing, we are all worried to death about this banking thing. And I don't think any Member of Congress--or for that matter, any American-- isn't concerned about this tightening, choking down of credit that has taken place in the United States. And therefore, the entrepreneurial spirit of America is being choked down because of stupid mistakes that were made by the government. And let's maybe talk about those for just a little bit. And I will first yield to Michele Bachmann.

And just another little news story here that broke. This is a former colleague of ours. He is now maybe in one of the most powerful positions in the United States, he is the Chief of Staff of the White House, Rahm Emanuel. This is from ABC News, a very conservative source. ``Emanuel was Director of Freddie Mac during the scandal. $25,000 Freddie to Emanuel equals $200 billion taxpayers to Freddie,'' written by Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz.

``President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the Federal mortgage firm, Freddie Mac, at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency, and the board failed to spot red flags, according to government reports reviewed by abc.com. The actions by Freddie Mac are cited by some economists as the beginning of the country's economic meltdown.''

``The Federal Government this year was forced to take over Freddie Mac and his sister Federal mortgage agency, Fannie Mae, pledging at least $200 billion in public funds.'' And that is not my news story, that is ABC's news story.

And of course our Ethics Committee, bless their hearts, I don't think they have to deal with Mr. Rahm Emanuel. I think maybe the White House has to deal with the issues of Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and maybe they should. But it is the White House budget that we're talking about, and he is the chief policy officer of the White House. So I would assume that Mr. Rahm Emanuel's fingerprints are all over this budget. And I would expect Mr. Rahm Emanuel to be a spokesman for this budget. And we all can watch, in breathless anticipation, and see if I'm telling the truth. But let's watch and see. But those sort of things ought to be cleared up with the American people because at least one news source is saying this was the start of the crisis we're in, and he was right in the middle of it. So those are the kinds of things we have to look at.

Mr. Scalise has joined us. I will yield such time as you would like to have to comment on what we're talking about here today.

Reclaiming my time, you mentioned Wall Street. And Wall Street has taken a big hickey here lately. And you know who really took the hickey was the American people. And one of the things that I think everybody dreads doing almost as much as taking out the garbage is looking at their 401(k) or their pension plan after this last 60 days of the Obama administration and this trillion dollar leadership of this Democrat-led House of Representatives.

First 60 days, yes. Thank you for correcting me.

And then, lo and behold, under the President's budget, taxes on capital gains and dividends would increase from 15 to 20 percent, increasing their taxes on investments by $398 billion over 10 years. So if the poor old guy whose 401(k) is almost used to wrap the garbage in, if he starts to have any kind of rally on the stock market at any time in the foreseeable future--at least the next 10 years--this budget we are being asked to pass, this $3.6 trillion budget, is going to raise the taxes on his poor little old beat-up 401(k), or on your pension plans. This is a direct tax on American families.

And believe me, contrary to popular belief by the other side of the aisle, there are a lot of people in this country who make a whole lot less than $250,000 a year who own stock in corporations in America because they believe in the free enterprise system. They have invested in a way they feel is adequate to be good for their families, and they will be hit by this capital gains tax.

I will yield to Mr. Westmoreland.

Well, I agree.

Reclaiming my time, I thank Mr. Westmoreland for pointing that out. And, actually, I have talked to my community banks too, and they are very concerned about the massive increase in their assessment by FDIC and the fact they're going to have to pay a premium. But also what's really sad is they're the guys who made good loans. See, what people don't realize is that these community banks can hold their heads up high. They're not asking for TARP money because they didn't make bad loans. They stuck to the banking principles that their boards of directors made, and they stayed away from the pressure, with some exceptions, but in the vast majority of the cases across this country, the community bank system made sound, good business decisions. And now, unfortunately, because of the way it works, they are going to have to pay the penalty for those people who went off and made bad loans.

Now, we understand and I think our bankers will tell you they understand that's how the FDIC works and it's a program that they rely upon. But it still is part of that old ``'taint fair'' system that you and I have been talking about for the last couple of days.

I want to bring up just one more thing that's in this budget that I think is going to be a real issue for some awfully important people in this country. This budget that they've got out here caps the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent for those who have income over $250,000 married or $200,000 single, which will reduce charitable giving in this country by $9 billion. You know, I don't know why in the world you would want to hit the charities, the Cancer Society, the Heart Fund, the First Methodist Church, or the Third Baptist Church, why you would want to hit those people's pocketbooks to fund $3.6 trillion, but to me, that's questionable. We ought to be questioning that, and we ought to be saying why in the world do we have to basically put a burden on charities? And then tomorrow, tomorrow, we're supposed to vote on a bill to pay volunteers with taxpayer dollars. So we're going to pay volunteers with taxpayer dollars rather than encourage private sector donors to take care of community problems that they all work hard

to take care of. This is nuts. This is European socialism at its best.

Americans have hearts of gold. One of the things that the American people liked that Ronald Reagan said about them was he reminded them that deep down inside every American there burned that flame of liberty and freedom that made them good people who were all heroes because they got up in the morning and they went to work and they took care of their families. And yet it seems that whoever put together this budget doesn't view America that way. They view it differently.

Finally, something that I have been appalled with forever is taxing death. A guy works all of his life. He pays his taxes. He takes care of his bills. He works double shifts and works hard. He acquires some property, and that property gains value, whatever the property may be. And he's happy because he's been an honest taxpaying citizen. And then he dies, and lo and behold the United States Government wants to come in and tax him on his death.

Now, I have a good friend, and I'm not going to use his name because I don't have his permission to use it, but he is from Clayton, New Mexico, and he'll know who he is, who had a beautiful ranching operation in Clayton, New Mexico, when I knew him at Texas Tech University and he was a buddy of mine. And he had two really nice ranches in that area, the home place and another ranch. I ran into him in Rocksprings, Texas, a while back, and I asked him how he was doing, and he said, ``Well, I'm living in Texas now. I'm ranching in Texas.''

I said, ``What happened to Clayton, New Mexico?''

He said, ``The taxman took it.'' He said, ``When my dad died, I had to sell land, and the only land I could sell was the home place, which was the best place; so that only left me with our worst little ranch. I traded that for a small place down here in Texas, and I'm down here scratching out a living on about a third of what my daddy worked and fought for and my great-grandaddy and my grandaddy died for in fighting to tame that part of New Mexico.''

I don't know. I find that's pretty offensive to me. Why does the United States Government deserve to put the fourth generation of that family out of the ranching business so they can tax a guy that has already paid his taxes? But that's headed our way in this new $3.6 trillion budget.

I'm not going to tonight go into the rest of the examples that I have here. We'll go into those another time. But I hope I've made it clear that my purpose to get up and talk about these ethical problems is not to make the kind of accusations that were made two Congresses ago against the Republican Party about ``culture of corruption'' because I don't think that's appropriate. I am only pointing out there are issues that have been raised by the watchdogs of this Congress, the press, that should be resolved.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience and thank you for this evening.

I would like to point out something that seems to be a mistake that is made by a lot of people.

The 2008 budget which would be argued here on the floor of the House was Bush's budget. The reality of spending, we up here, this House of Representatives has responsibilities as well as rights. And the real world is the President proposes a budget, but the Congress adopts the budget. It is the Congress's budget when we get through with it.

So the 2008 budget that shows the increase over 2007 fairly substantially is the Congress's budget. You are not seeing George Bush's budget, you are seeing the Democrat-controlled Congress's budget in 2008.

Now their President has proposed, the Democratic Party's President has proposed a 2009 budget that goes off the charts. It is kind of interesting because we hear, ``I will reduce the budget by 50 percent.'' So let's see, if you raise the budget 300 percent and you reduce it 150 percent, you have reduced it 50 percent. We are still 150 percent over where you were.

And that chart exactly shows what we're talking about. If you look at those lines, we're taking the President at his word, as we go all the way down here, what is that last one? 2018?

That's right. That is my whole point. That chart clearly shows you that if your criticism was of the Bush administration for deficit spending--which we heard a lot of noise about that--then if you look at those red columns, none of those drops down to even equal with the largest Republican-led Congress deficit. Okay. They are almost double the Republican-led Congress' deficit all the way to the end of your chart.

But yes, they do reduce that big line by more than 50 percent. If you want to talk about voodoo chart drawing, that's voodoo chart drawing. That's saying, if I jack it up to $3.6 trillion, then, yes, I can drop this thing big time down the road, but you are still way over what you were dealing with back in 2004. So this whole concept of trying to smoke and mirrors the world, it's time to stop all that.

There is a young man I was just talking to out in the hall who has a little business, and he wants to go out and expand his little business. And his world is this, that he looks at it, he gets taxed as ordinary income even though he's a small business, and he says to himself, why should I stick my neck out for another couple hundred thousand dollars in debt to try to expand my business when all I'm going to do is get myself up into a tax bracket that I'm going to be going downhill?

So, that's exactly the example. Or a young man I talked to, walked up to me at an event in Killeen, Texas, and he said, you know, my wife and I started a business 5 years ago. He said, we have taken this idea up to a business that employs 40 people. We are now at a point where we have to make a decision; do we expand our business by borrowing about a half a million dollars, indebting ourselves as a couple, and have the potential to maybe employ 80 people--which, gosh, isn't that what we want? Isn't that what we're talking about, creating jobs? He said, but we look at it, and we see what is coming down with this cap-and-trade and the cost that that's going to put on me, when we see what's coming down on the tax increase for people earning over $250,000, and we're concerned that will put such a burden upon us that we might actually lose this business. So now we're looking at it and saying, maybe we should shore up what we've got and lay off a few people to be sound in hopes that somebody will get sanity back in the taxing of our people in this country. And let's hold on until logic comes back into the world.

That's not the way we want to cause people to expand and have a better life. And that's exactly what we're talking about with this budget that's proposed by the President and looks like is overwhelmingly going to be adopted by the majority in this House.

We've got real issues here that the American people have to think about. Because with your 2-year-old daughter--and I wish her a happy birthday--that's where you should be focusing all

your attention. And I should be focusing all my attention on what we're leaving--not just to her little generation at 2 years old that's going to grow up in this country, but the children that she is going to have and the children they are going to have. If we keep going down the road that we're going down right now with the kind of unbelievable spending that has gone on in the first 50 some-odd days of Obama's first term as President of the United States, if this keeps up, how will our descendants ever pay this back?

If the gentleman would yield for just a moment, because I actually happened to be thinking about that on my way up here this week.

We are experiencing that rare time that all Members of Congress who travel back and forth have to deal with called spring break. And I think that everybody that flew on an airplane coming up here knows that there were thousands and thousands and thousands of young people going all over the country and all over Mexico--and who knows where--on spring break. And it reminded me of something that Will Rogers said during the Great Depression, he said, ``America is a funny place. We may be the only country in the world that's driving to the poor house in an automobile.'' The whole point was, we need to remind ourselves, as we debate about this issue, that we are Americans who, if given the right tools, can incentivize our way out of any mess we get into.

We are still the most blessed Nation on the face of the Earth. We need to fix this banking crisis. And we don't need to fix it by indebting our grandchildren and our great grandchildren with special projects to meet campaign promises that were made. We need to concentrate on the issue, which is getting credit back in the market. And then that young man out in the hall and that young man in Killeen, Texas, can go borrow their loan from their bank and go invest it in the future for their children and grandchildren, and our country will continue to send all these beautiful children off on spring break.

I think we realize who we are. We can do anything we set our mind to if the government will just get out of the way and give us a chance to do it. I yield back.

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.

And that spending was new spending.

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.

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.

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.''

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.

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.

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.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 11, 2009, at 10 a.m.

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.

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,

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They never die. They continue to grow.

If the gentleman will yield back.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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--

For every $50,000 a year job.

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?

That's right.

That's right.

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?

And if the gentleman would yield for one more thing.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being recognized.

I sure enjoyed hearing from my colleagues talking about the work of the day in, I think, a very accurate way.

I'm here tonight to talk about, I think, correcting some potential inequities.

I'm very blessed in my life. I spent 10 years practicing law in the town of Round Rock, Texas, in Williamson County, at that time a small town where a lawyer in that town pretty well did anything that walked in the door, from criminal cases all the way down to property tax cases. And I had a lot of clients back in those days that were in small businesses or who might be individuals who sometimes, I would say, unintentionally failed to pay some of the taxes they owed to the IRS. And inevitably when those things would

happen, they would receive from the IRS a notice that they had failed to pay their taxes or failed to file their income tax or failed to pay payroll taxes that they should have paid. And these clients would come running to a lawyer.

At that time I was only one of two lawyers in town and never claimed to be a tax expert. But I could read the form that told us what they needed to do, and we could get them with a CPA, and they would get their taxes filed. And they would receive a notice from the IRS which would tell them that they would have to pay penalties and interest on this particular sum of money, whatever it may be. It might have been relatively small. But if the time period had been long, the penalties would be very horrendous. They would be very fierce. Sometimes over a period of time of, say, 8 or 10 years of failure to pay, you might see the penalties and interest be two, three, four times what the actual taxes were that were owed by the individual.

If it happened to be payroll taxes, I will tell you that, by my experience in those days, they would threaten to padlock businesses and put people in prison for that, for failing to pay payroll taxes, because, actually, that was other people's money that they withhold held and didn't pay and didn't pay their matching share. So the IRS would get very mad about failing to pay payroll taxes.

But they would also be a little bit upset about failing to pay income taxes and threaten similar actions, mostly padlocking businesses and seizing assets.

It was possible to go talk with the IRS, and you could sometimes negotiate those penalties and interest. But I never saw them not assess them in my period of time that I did that.

After the 10 years of practicing law, I spent 20 years as a general jurisdiction district judge in Texas, which is the highest trial court in Texas, and I tried a wide variety of cases, some of which was family law. I tried a tremendous amount of family law cases, somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 over that 20-year period of time.

I also tried criminal cases and so forth. In many family law cases, one of the issues when you are trying to guide assets, you would also be dividing liabilities, and one of the liabilities you would inevitably see would be failure to pay taxes or being late on taxes or failing to file taxes. So we dealt with this same issue, and I can report to this body that by my experience, the failure to pay those taxes always seemed to result in a letter from the IRS assessing penalties and interest for failure to pay.

Now, I raise this issue because I think it's important that we have fairness that everyone be treated fairly in this country. And so many will recall that it was reported by a Member of Congress on this House floor about 4 or 5 months ago, one of our Members, a very well respected, highly respected Member of this body, told us that he had failed to pay his taxes for a period of 10 years on a rental property in the Dominican Republic. And he reported that he was going through his people, he was going to discuss with the IRS the payment of these taxes, and he was going to pay his taxes.

He has since reported that he has paid his taxes to the tune of somewhere near the sum of $10,000. He also has reported that he has not paid any penalties and interest because no penalties and interest have been assessed.

Now, this struck me as very strange. By my experience and having dealt with it, I am not saying I did this full time every day, but you know, I think most Americans know, if they have been through anything, they have dealt with the IRS, the IRS is pretty proud of assessing penalties and interest. They like that a whole lot.

And so, to me, it was at first curious that this person, who is very directly related to the taxing system of the United States, has, in fact, not been even assessed any penalties and interest. I thought, you know, we serve in this body here because a bunch of people back home actually said we would like you to represent us in Washington, and we think you think like we do, and so they vote for you, and they give you this job.

But at least in my personal opinion, that makes us no different from them, other than we are kind of hired to speak for them up here as the best we can, and I think that's what we are here for. But we certainly, by the nature of our employment in the House of Representatives, should not receive any special treatment above and beyond the same special treatment that would be available to every American citizen, every American taxpayer.

So I have introduced a bill today which would basically say that because no penalties and interest were assessed against a Member of this House, that, in fact, we have equal treatment under the law, which is one of our constitutional rights. We would allow people to claim that same right not to pay penalties and interest if they hadn't paid their taxes.

This bill has got a name, and we call it the Rangel rule.

I would hope that people would take it in the light that it is set. It is not criticism in any way of any Member of this House. In fact, if it's criticism of anything, it's criticism of the IRS of the United States for failure to treat people equally under the law. And so I raise this issue because, in fact, that's what I seek here by this legislation, equal treatment under the law.

That club owner that I was well aware of back in the 1970s who constantly was having trouble with the IRS--and he is dead now, so I am not going to use his name; but I represented him before the IRS a half a dozen times, and we battled tooth and nail and borrowed money to pay that principal, interest and penalty that he had to pay.

He, if there is someone that's given special consideration, then that man should have been given special consideration. And that's why I have introduced this bill which basically says that if you have failed to pay your taxes and you are willing to pay the taxes, and you don't want penalties and interest assessed against you, then you can claim the Rangel rule, and you won't have penalties and interest assessed against you, according to the law.

That's what we are doing here today. We are not doing it out of any malice, we are only doing it because we think it's fair for the American people.

I am joined by some of my colleagues here. I will first yield, I think, to my friend from Iowa (Mr. King) since he is down on the floor and let him give us some comments.

Actually, I point that out in the spirit of bipartisanship and working together, yes, very much, although I understand that the now-Secretary of the Treasury, designee of the new administration, has, in fact, paid the interest on this amount, but no penalties have been assessed. Yes, he could claim this very rule to have the penalties waived should this be enacted into law.

Of course, I would urge the committees of jurisdiction to move forward on this very quickly, so we can treat every American citizen fairly under the rule. In fact, even Mrs. Kennedy's issues on her nanny, that seemed to prevent her to being a possible candidate for the United States Senate, that also might fall under the Rangel rule and those issues could also be addressed.

So, yes, certainly we, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle could benefit from this.

I would like now to hear from my friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) who has been patiently here waiting to speak. I yield such time as you might consume.

I thank you for your comments. Your ``ruh rohs,'' this was very interesting. One of the things I was thinking about too, we had a very unusual procedure take place. When the gentleman I was describing was speaking on the floor, he announced that he was going to turn himself in to the Ethics Committee.

Well, so that we understand exactly what the Ethics Committee is, they are very noble people who serve a very tough job in this House because they have to look into issues concerning their colleagues. I have a high respect for people who are willing to serve on the Ethics Committee.

But the reality of the Ethics Committee in this House is that it has an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on that committee. So if everybody just sticks with their party, then things seem to have a deadlock time quite often in the ethics committee. In fact, for most of the time since I have been in Congress, the Ethics Committee has been deadlocked. I am going into my fourth term in Congress.

So I would say that turning yourself in to the Ethics Committee would be sort of like someone turning themselves in to the grand jury when the grand jury is not going to function. And so that shouldn't be a defense. We shouldn't have that kind of defense for actions that take place in this House, that, Oh, I will step up in front of everybody and say this is what happened. I am turning I myself in to the Ethics Committee. And then it's going to be business as usual for their act.

The American people don't have that kind of dark hole to dump things in. That shouldn't be an issue. This should be an issue of ethics and morals that touch the hearts of these people who serve in this Congress.

The judiciary in Texas has a rule that not even the appearance of impropriety against the person who serves on the bench. It's very tough, strict, because you have to think, What does this look like when I do this? And if you think somebody thinks that there's something improprietous about what you just did or said, you better not do it, because you can be severely sanctioned by those who police up our judiciary in Texas for giving the appearance of impropriety.

That is not the standard of this House. I would argue it maybe should be because it makes you police your conscience, to some extent. But it's not. So I do not want anybody to get the misconception that I'm saying that is the standard that we meet here. But we certainly should realize and be humbled by issues that go before the Ethics Committee. I am not saying that the Ethics Committee is the ``do-all, see-all,'' or that they do anything wrong. I think they actually are courageous people who have a tough job.

We need a functioning Ethics Committee, and I think we will get one because Nancy Pelosi has told us we will get one. And so I take my Speaker at her word that we will get one. And I'm hoping that we can do that.

I would ask Mr. King if he would like to make a comment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding back. My friend from Georgia had some comments, I think.

I thank you for your comments, and I think it is very important that we talk about these things.

I think it is important that we do what--I want to praise my colleagues for doing this. We do this, we make these critical statements and we talk about these issues, and we are not being venomous and we are not trying to be mean. We are trying to lay out the facts and the issues that concern ethical conduct that we are concerned about. We are concerned about it because, quite frankly, we all get painted with the same brush, and we should think about that.

We work daily with our colleagues that are on the floor of this House. We should, and do, respect each one of our colleagues for their service to the United States; and by our ethical behavior, we can paint our colleagues with a brush that shouldn't be there. And so we raise these issues in the good spirit of saying these are issues this body needs to address so that we don't taint others.

In the past, there have been people who have created slogans that taint the whole body. That is not our purpose here today. Our purpose here today is to point out fairness and equality in our system, so that Members of Congress are not treated any differently than any other taxpaying American citizens. And that is what this legislation that I have introduced is all about. I have written a letter to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee asking him to support it, and I did it in good spirit.

So I am anxious to go forward with this concept. And I like what you say about people that are facing this issue. They ought to at least talk to somebody about being treated at least as well as a Congressman gets treated in Washington, D.C.

Mr. King, I will yield you some more time if you need some.

I thank the gentleman for yielding back.

I think those are some very interesting ideas that you have put forward. I have always wondered how some poor person sitting in the Gallery can figure out what in the heck is going on without sitting here for a couple of hours until finally it kind of soaks in that maybe they are talking about taxes or maybe they are talking about soldiers. But it can take a while to figure that out. Those are some interesting concepts.

I very quickly yield to my friend from Georgia for some additional comments.

It is true we got off the subject matter, and the subject matter here is equal treatment under the law. But, quite frankly, I think a good title, we may have just created a good title for people who want to lay things out in the sunshine for the American people to look at, without calling names, which is not what we have experienced in this body in previous Congresses, but just lay it out there. We are not going to say culture of anything. We are just going to say let's let some sunshine on the process, and let's let the common sense of the American people make that decision.

I trust the common sense of the American people. I think that there is no better common sense than the folks back home. I did a telephone town hall last night and I heard the best assessment of the bill we passed today, spending $825 billion from the folks back home, because they looked at it with common sense and said this is ridiculous.

I am proud of those people back home that take the commonsense view. We are going to be, and I'm not going to say sunshine boys because we have some ladies that are going to join us, too, but maybe the sunshine group. We will shine light on what is going on in the Congress, and I think that is a good thing to do. I think we ought to expose warts and all.

But having served 20 years in the judiciary and in the law for almost 40 years, I think the oath, the original oath I took when I became a lawyer and then the oath that I continually took for five terms as a judge and the oath I take in this Congress requires me to stand up for equal protection under the law as part of our Constitution of the United States. I think we are all required to seek for every American equal protection under the law.

And that is why we have raised this issue. It may be a small issue to some people. It may be something that they say I don't care anything about that. They will care when the IRS sends them their penalties and interest. I can guarantee you they will care because they will look at that check and say holy cow, where did that come from. When you are talking about 10 years of failure to pay taxes, you are talking about what could potentially be a large number of especially penalties.

So, you know, all we are asking is let everybody take a look at it and see if we can't all agree to give equal protection under the law; and, therefore, step up and tell the IRS if they are wanting penalties and interest that you are going to claim the Rangel rule and you hopefully will get the same equal treatment that is available in Washington, D.C.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Reclaiming my time, we operate under a variation of Jefferson's original manual for the operations of this House. So he is the one who wrote the original rules for the operation of this House. Although there are variations and amendments that have been done to it, they give you a copy of Jefferson's Manual because it is the Bible, if you will, of the United States House of Representatives.

So that is a good quote and one we should repeat to ourselves both in the minority and ultimately when we get back into the majority. I think that is where we should be, and I think that is where all of the minority and majority should be.

We are about to run out of time. I want to thank my colleagues for coming here. I hope you will join me as we put sunshine on other issues that need to have sunshine shining upon them.

We would encourage the new media that is out there to start interacting and discussing this because I think this is something that the public needs to talk about. I am not sure whether it is going to be talked about with the big boys, but the bloggers can talk about this and other folks can get a common discussion about are we putting sunshine on issues that are important and is fairness under the law important to all Americans.