[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 110 (Monday, July 26, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6035-H6038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUSTICE FOR ALL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Markey of Colorado). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Carter) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, Nancy Pelosi became the first elected
female Speaker of the House in the history of the United States. On
November 16, 2006 she stated, ``This leadership team will create the
most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.'' She
still serves as our Speaker and she also sits in the position in line
to, in case of some horrible disaster, she is actually third in line to
the Presidency.
The President of the United States said, ``I campaigned on changing
Washington and bottom-up politics. I don't want to send a message to
the American people that there are two sets of standards, one for
powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day
and paying their taxes.'' President Barack Obama said this to CNN on
February 3, 2009. So that was the stage that was set for the Democratic
administration in this House and for the Democrat administration in the
White House.
I've been on the floor of this House now for about 18 or 19 months
talking about lots of things, about how we have rules for a reason, and
we believe, as Americans, in the rule of law. It is as sacred as
anything that there is of a secular nature in this country, that we
believe that law and fairness is so important to us that we have laws,
and that each person is treated fairly under those laws. And there are
no exceptions. And as the President said, we want a world that we live
in that says everybody in this country is not only created equal but is
going to be treated equal under the law. And we've had lots of examples
where that didn't happen, and that's part of the turmoil that has moved
around this Nation for over 200 years. But the average American citizen
down deep in his soul, in his heart, he wants that world, she wants
that world, the American citizen wants the world that says the law
treats everybody equally and fairly. And when we go to our court
systems under the rules that we operate under, we expect others to
follow those rules the same way, and we expect that those who are in a
position of enforcing those rules are seeing that that conduct is
policed up when those rules are broken. We expect them to treat
everybody equally and accordingly.
We've got a volume of rules for this House of Representatives that's
about that thick, and it is written in such fine print that you have to
have reading glasses to read it, even when you're young--and when
you're my age, you certainly need bifocals and trifocals just to read
the fine print. But we also have people that have served in this
Congress for decades and dealt with these rules. And they understand
them, they know these rules, the Speaker being one of them. And when we
make a promise to this House that we will have the most honest, open,
and ethical Congress in the history of the Congress, that kind of
promise is important to the American people because that's exactly what
they were looking for from this Democratic administration.
Many times I stand here all by myself on the floor of the House
talking about these things, occasionally somebody comes forward and
joins me. But I think the Members of this House in their souls expect
that. I think every American citizen expects that. And we are now at a
point where after I've been talking for 18 or 19 months almost every
week about the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr.
Charles Rangel, and the issues that he had, we have finally, finally
reached a point where the Ethics Committee has moved off high center
and launched forward in this case. But just so we get an idea of why
I've been standing up here, why my colleagues come and join me and
stand up here, let's just go through the timeline that we're dealing
with and how long it's been going on.
September 24, 2008: The House Ethics Committee votes to open an
investigation into soliciting funds for the Charlie Rangel Center for
Public Service, occupying rent-stabilized apartments, soliciting
donations on congressional letterhead, and not disclosing or paying
changes on rental income from a Dominican villa. September 24, 2008.
November 6-9, 2008: Mr. Rangel leads the Citigroup-funded
congressional junket to the Caribbean.
December 9, 2008: The Ethics Committee expands the investigation to
include Rangel's efforts to preserve tax breaks to a donor to the
Rangel Center.
January 28, 2009: Representative Carter, Republican from Texas,
introduces the Rangel rule, a bill to eliminate all IRS penalties and
interests for paying taxes past due, the reason for that rule being
that's the way the IRS treated the chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee, and I took the position that that was only fair.
August 12, 2009: Rangel amends his financial disclosure forms for
2002 to 2006, effectively doubling his wealth that he now acknowledges
to the country.
October 6, 2009: Representative Carter introduces a resolution
demanding that Rangel step down as the Ways and Means chairman.
October 8, 2009: The Ethics Committee expands the Rangel
investigation to all 2009 financial statements.
February 26, 2010: The Ethics Committee admonishes Rangel for
accepting the Caribbean trip.
March 3, 2010: Rangel steps down as chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee after Representative Carter prepares to introduce another
privileged resolution.
July 22, 2010: The Ethics Committee announces that its subcommittee
investigating Rangel alleges House rules violations and that they will
be made public on July 29.
So from September 24, 2008 to July 29, 2010, this House dealt with
the issues concerning Mr. Rangel. What's not on this board and should
be is that on the floor of this very House--and really what launched us
into realizing this was going on--was Mr. Rangel stepped before the
House and told us every one of these things, every one of them, and
said he had turned himself in to the Ethics Committee. Well, I'd like
to explain that those of us that deal with the law have a saying,
``justice delayed is justice denied.'' And that's one of the reasons
why we have speedy trial acts in many of the jurisdictions in this
country because justice delayed is justice denied.
Now, when we're talking about justice, we're not talking just about
justice for the individual defendant, we're talking about justice for
everyone involved.
{time} 2050
If it's a criminal case, we're talking about the kind of justice
where the State, representing the people of a State or of this country,
is desiring justice on behalf of the people, and the defendant is
desiring justice on behalf of the defendant. It doesn't really matter
who it is or who is being denied this
[[Page H6036]]
justice, whether it be the people as represented by the State or the
government or whether it be the individual who may be the defendant who
is looking for individual justice. Any undue delay in dealing with a
problem like this is justice denied.
So we are in July. We are just 1 month and 20-some-odd or 30-some-odd
days--let's just be honest and call it 2 months--we are just 2 months
away from 2 years of dealing with the situation with Mr. Rangel. He
stood right there at that microphone and told us about it for over an
hour on the floor of this House.
Now, having seen some very unusual releases by the Ethics Committee
about the scope of their investigation, I will say they have done a
very comprehensive and a very effective investigation of this case. I
want to say that from the outset because I am certainly not in any way
demeaning the work ethic of that committee. But when we have the leader
saying that we have to deal with this, you have to ask: How does this
compare with other cases? How does this compare with the kind of
justice we were seeking at other times?
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when one whole half of
this House, the half that was in the majority at that time, was accused
by the minority--and this was every one of us on the Republican side--
of being involved in a culture of corruption because of certain issues
that very validly were dealt with both by the Justice Department, with
some people ending up in prison, and by our Ethics Committee.
It is the duty and the responsibility of the leadership that leads
this House of Representatives--and that leadership is headed by Nancy
Pelosi--to make sure that we are going forward, that we are going
forward in a very effective way and that we are getting to the root of
the problem as quickly as possible.
I would argue that after this 2 years, less 2 months, that we have
been dealing with the Rangel case, it is still not resolved; and now
there is at least some speculation that there will be no resolution of
this issue until after the November elections or at least until after
the New York primary elections. You know, the primary voters ought to
know the resolution of this problem. They ought to know what is going
to happen as they go to vote in the New York primary, but it doesn't
look like we are going to resolve it even by the time the voters have
had a chance to express their opinions one way or the other against any
of the candidates that are involved.
I think that is justice denied.
We're moving forward. I'm not rushing. I've had people ask me
questions about resolutions and so forth. I believe in the system, and
I am hoping this system is now off high center and is moving forward
with haste, but sometimes it takes somebody like me just down here,
talking and talking and talking, to remind folks we have a duty to
everybody in this House, to everybody in this country and to the
individuals who are accused to resolve the issues. This issue has been
on the forefront for a long time; but if we don't get through this,
just look at what has happened in this period of time.
Mr. Rangel was in charge of the committee. There have been major
pieces of legislation that he has ushered through this House. Maybe
it's appropriate. Maybe it's not. We don't know. We haven't resolved
this issue. We don't know whether any of these allegations have been
actually addressed. We don't know what the outcome is going to be, and
we are probably not going to know before the people of New York have a
chance to go vote in their primary. I don't think that's the right way
that ought to be. I don't think the average American thinks that's the
right way it ought to be either.
Here is a fairly recent statement. I don't have a date on it. I
apologize for that. It is from the Congressional Daily: ``Massa Case
still hangs over Dems,'' meaning Democrats. ``For House Democrats, how
soon will the other ethics shoe drop--and how hard?''
``A House Ethics subcommittee's finding last week that Representative
Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York, violated congressional ethics
rules comes at a politically awkward time in these months before the
November 2 midterm elections.''
So I guess this is very current.
``Little word has emerged from another Ethics panel reviewing whether
Speaker Pelosi and other House leaders or their aides mishandled
initial complaints of sexual harassment against former Representative
Eric Massa, Democrat from New York, by male staffers.''
So here we have another issue that's hanging out there, and you ask:
Well, what's the big hurry on this? When did this happen? What is the
timeline?
Well, let's compare this timeline to a timeline we know, because we
had another event in this House where there were allegations of sexual
misconduct, and so we are going to talk about both of them and compare
them and see where we are.
The Mark Foley case. This is back when the Republicans were in charge
of the House of Representatives:
On September 29, 2006, Representative Foley resigned after
allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior with House pages. On
October 5, 2006, which was in a week and a half, the Ethics Committee
launches the investigation. On December 8, 2006, the Ethics Committee
concludes the investigation. Foley's resignation and the investigation
totals 70 days. The accusations were: What did the House Republican
leadership know ahead of time about Mark Foley and about the
allegations against him?
We have the Eric Massa case:
What are the allegations? What did the Democrat House staff know
about the allegations against Mr. Massa? At what time did they know it?
How far before it was actually reported? On March 8, 2010,
Representative Massa resigns. On April 21, 2010, the Ethics Committee
launches the investigation. The Massa investigation today is 141 days
and counting. It is not resolved.
Let's have a comparison. By our little example right here, it takes
twice as long under the Democrats as the Republicans--and still
counting. Heck, if you look at the Rangel case, it may be 2 years
before it's resolved, and maybe it will be next week. I don't know when
it's going to be; but the point is that, already, we are 141 days into
exactly the same kind of allegations. What did the Speaker and the
majority leader know? In the case that involved the Republican-led
Congress, it was resolved in 70 days. In the case under the Democrat-
led Congress, we are at 141 days and counting.
So there is a responsibility here when you are in the leadership of
this House of Representatives. The committee has to move, and it has to
move at a pace. Believe me, even though the committee has exactly the
same number of people--of Democrats and Republicans on the Ethics
Committee--it still has a chairman and a ranking member. The chairman
is in charge of the majority, and the ranking member is in charge of
the minority; but the chairman leads the committee, and the chairman is
appointed by the Speaker.
So here we are. Let's compare the two Ethics Committees: one
Republican-appointed chairman and one Democrat-appointed chairman. I
have nothing against the chairman. In fact, I happen to like the lady a
lot--I really do--but the facts are they're not moving at the speed
they need to move to get justice done. There may be absolutely nothing
to this. There may be a slight mishandling. It was resolved in 70 days
under the Republicans. We are at 141 days and counting right now.
{time} 2100
I think that's something we need to think about. I think it's our
obligation as Members of this House to point this out to people, point
this out to the Members of this Congress, point this out to the
American people. Because why should we do it? Maybe we wouldn't have
such an obligation if the Speaker of the House hadn't told us that this
was going to be the most honest, open, and most ethical Congress in
history. In 200-plus years, it's going to be the most honest, open, and
ethical Congress. With that kind of declaration by the leadership here,
that kind of promise to the American people, then that promise ought to
be kept.
People are tired. They're tired, and that's why nobody likes this. I
told somebody today, I said, You know, when your congressional approval
is 11 percent, you've got to worry if folks at church and folks in your
own family even like you.
That's not the way it's supposed to be. This is supposed to be an
honorable
[[Page H6037]]
group. And I think it is. I honestly think it is. But it's this kind of
justice delayed, this kind of not letting us know what's going on that
is not open and it's not honest, and I think I could almost argue it's
not ethical.
So if you're going to promise those things, you've got to deliver.
And if you need to go down to the committee and say, I'm here to tell
you what I know, step up and do it. Don't wait to be subpoenaed.
Resolve the issue. It's fair to all involved, both the American people
and the individual involved.
That's what I have been saying for 18 months on the floor of the
House. There are those who think that I am a hatchet man against
Charlie Rangel. I am not. I have said it every time I have spoken. He
is owed the right to have this matter resolved, just as much as the
American people are owed the right.
Now, the extent of the investigation was complex. The alleged
occurrences against Mr. Rangel were more difficult than the average
stuff, because a lot of it dealt with stuff you have to deal with taxes
and tax lawyers and CPAs and who else, no telling what else.
But still, we've got to break this cycle of accusations that die or
go to sleep in the Ethics Committee. Somebody shouldn't believe, if
they turn themselves in, the thing will go into a bottomless pit, a
dark hole, and disappear in the slow, snail's pace movement of the
Ethics Committee. And every member of that Ethics Committee, both sides
of the aisle, are honorable people, so do not misunderstand that I am
in any way defaming any of those people. I am not.
But we have had lots of other things come up in this Congress that
really haven't been addressed. Now, I'm not saying that every time
somebody puts something in the newspaper that that makes it
automatically something that ought to go directly to an accusatory
situation, but these are just some of the headlines that have happened
in the last couple of years:
New York Daily News, ``The FBI joins Massa probe of sexual
harassment, hush money, and coverups.''
``Norm Dicks is about to go from Mr. Boeing to Mr. Spending,'' The
Washington Post. I am not sure that should be in there.
CQ says, ``Representative Waters calls TARP meeting for her husband's
bank.'' Has that been looked into? I don't know.
Landmark Legal Foundation files House ethics complaint against
Conyers. Has anything been done about that?
Roll Call, Mollohan charity got a rental deal. Allegations that Mr.
Mollohan made some special realty deal to his charity. And the voters
took care of that problem.
Weekly Standard, ``GOP proposes earmark moratorium in wake of the PMA
scandal.'' The PMA scandal was a scandal that involved--let's see, who
was that? Please forgive me. I am a little under the weather tonight.
``Congressman Pete Visclosky has less than half the cash on hand for
reelection bid than he did this time 2 years ago, but his legal bills
keep growing.'' This is from the Associated Press in 2010, July 19. It
points out that he has spent $100,000 on legal fees since April. The
Times of Munster reported Saturday that the new amount brings to more
than 400,000 the total Visclosky has spent on expenses related to the
Federal investigation of the PMA Group. PMA is suspected of making
straw donations to lawmakers that concealed the true source of the
money. PMA represented defense clients, including several Visclosky
donors who received Federal earmarks. So that's what that's all about.
The Republicans decided to have a moratorium on earmarks in light of
the PMA scandal because, I guess, the way we Republicans looked at it
was enough's enough.
``Geithner tax woes examined.'' Now, this is an old story. But the
Secretary of the Treasury, who we saw on the talk shows this weekend
talking to us about the economy and how we should believe that things
are getting better and how we should trust that things are getting
better, he received an extra payment with the taxes included in a
separate check, the way I understand it, to pay his taxes, and he
didn't pay his taxes. And when he got appointed to the Treasury, to be
the Secretary of the Treasury, it came out that he hadn't paid these
taxes. So he paid the taxes, and he may have even paid the interest,
but I don't think he paid a penalty. So he's about half the Rangel
rule. Rangel didn't pay penalty or interest.
You have a taxpayer who pays both penalty and interest. And, you
know, here's the problem with all this stuff about whether you paid
penalty and interest, whether you paid your taxes on time. Were you
treated differently than the average guy?
There is a lady, and I am not going to mention her name, but she's at
our grocery store where we shop back home in Texas, and her son failed
to pay some taxes, and he was just a guy. He did the best he could to
try to explain why he didn't pay the taxes. The taxes were not as
sizable, anywhere near as sizable as the ones either involved in
Geithner or Rangel's case, and that young man spent 3 years in the
Bastrop Federal Penitentiary in Bastrop, Texas. And his mother told us
this at the HEB grocery store in Round Rock, Texas.
A lot of people come to judges, former judges like me, and tell them
stories about problems that their family's having, I guess because we
used to be in the business and we maybe could give them some
compassion, I suppose. But the point is I'm not saying anybody deserves
to go to the penitentiary in these cases. That's up to the Justice
Department. If the Justice Department fairly and equitably does its
job, which seems to be in some question right now, then they will deal
with it. And I still have faith in the justice system of the United
States, and I still want to have faith in the Justice Department.
But going back to where we started, most importantly of anything,
Americans want to be treated equitably by those who enforce the rules;
and, arguably, Mr. Geithner and Mr. Rangel got special treatment.
So at some time later on this week, we're going to have the beginning
of a resolution of Mr. Rangel's case. The White House, which certainly
this Congress's Ethics Committee doesn't have anything to say about the
workings of the Secretary of the Treasury, there doesn't seem to be
anything being dealt with at all by the White House on Mr. Geithner.
{time} 2110
There's other accusations about the White House, Mr. Rahm Emanuel
served on the board of Freddie Mac while these so-called fraudulent
lending practices were going on, and he just says he didn't notice
them, I guess. It doesn't seem to interfere with what he's doing at the
White House, even though he came to this Congress with $25,000 worth of
Freddie Mac donations, and the White House is now giving $200 billion
to Freddie Mac. And in the meanwhile, Mr. Emanuel was living rent free
in the home of one of the basement's of one of our other Members of
this Congress.
These things have been raised but they've disappeared because he's no
longer under the House Committee. And so I guess it's up to the
administration to give us justice on those issues or even look into it.
Now, we're leaving out the Senate money trial of former Illinois
Governor Blagojevich and possible involvement of House Members, and
allegations against Mr. Conyers of Michigan, the fact there was a
conviction of former Congressman William Jefferson, the sex payroll
scandal of former Congressman Tim Mahoney. And we can review these
cases for a long time, but there is no reason to go into those things.
But all of these things have to be brought up because we are not the
most open, ethical Congress in the history of this United States. It
was promised, and that promise has not been delivered upon. And I think
that we have a duty, as Members of this House, to examine that and
wonder why the leadership of this House has not delivered on that
promise.
I don't expect the Speaker to know or be in charge of every private
life of every Member here. God forbid. Nobody wants that. That's way
beyond the pale. But there are duties and responsibilities that leaders
have.
And I would argue that we saw what happened when other leaders had
accusations against them because in the Republican Congress they went
there, gave their side of the story, got it resolved in 70 days. We're
still waiting to resolve an almost identical case. The
[[Page H6038]]
question was what did the Speaker of the House, Hastert, know about the
Mark Foley case. The question here is what did the Speaker of the
House, Nancy Pelosi, know about the Massa case? Why 70 days versus 141
days? That's a question we ought to be asking ourselves. I don't have
the answer. I have the question. I can make some presumptions. The
answer is maybe failure to cooperate. Maybe not. Maybe I'm too busy to
talk to you today. Maybe not. Who knows what the reason is. But there's
70 more days in one investigation than the other. The other's resolved.
The one that's 71 days older is not resolved.
Justice delayed for anybody is justice denied. A reasonable amount of
time to prepare your case, of course. Making a proper investigation, of
course. I cannot fault any of those things. But especially when it
involves those who are in leadership of the House, it would seem to me
they should give an extraordinary effort to go do what they can do to
move the investigation along to a conclusion. If it means volunteering
to go before the committee at the very soonest possible time and
setting aside other things like fundraisers in San Francisco or trips
to Chicago and going before the Ethics Committee and resolving the
issue, it seems to me that's the way it ought to be done. That's what
the American people would expect.
I want to commend the Ethics Committee for coming forward with the
Rangel case. I take the position at this time that the process is moot
now going forward after over close to a 2-year investigation. I for
one, still believing in the system, believe that the system will do the
right thing and move with haste to conclude this issue that is still
hanging over Mr. Rangel's head and still hanging over the House of
Representatives' head, still hanging over the American people's head.
This is the people's House. Everybody in here was elected by people.
There was nobody in here appointed, ever, to this position. Everyone
who ever served in this Congress served because they were elected by
people. You can't say that about the Senate. But you can say it about
this House.
So when I say the House deserves an answer, the American people
deserve an answer, it's because they do. They deserve an answer. And I
hope this thing will be resolved. And it would be very appropriate if
we resolve at least some of the issues, if possible, before the people
of New York are asked to cast a vote in a primary later on in the next
few weeks. I'm not sure that's possible because we're about to go into
recess. But it's a shame that we're not giving the information to the
people of New York that they should have.
I want to thank the Speaker for allowing me to come in here in as
many weeks and do this talk, and I will probably be talking about other
things in the future.
But we have so many things that we, as people, can disagree on, which
is fine. That's what democracy is all about. But overwhelmingly
Americans agree that they want a justice system that works, and they
want folks to follow the rules, and they want everybody to be treated
or given at least the equal opportunity to be treated fairly. And as
long as I feel like there's people not being treated fairly or others
being treated more special than others, I think it's my job and the job
of every Member in this House to step up here and say, That's not
America.
____________________