[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6781-6784]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND WASTE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lujan). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Well, it's hard to change from one bicycle ride to 
another one, but we will give it a shot anyway and finish up what we 
were talking about on that spending.
  I just want to tell a story to you about a little old, a real good 
little school that's in my district, Tarleton State University, who 
took on a project which was started by Congressman Stenholm and then 
later supported by me to do a little data mining on crop insurance. 
This is a relatively small but important program used in the farm 
community, crop insurance.
  And they wanted to see if they could find, by doing data mining, 
waste, fraud and abuse. And, in reality, they found and actually, I 
guess, went forward on, prosecuted, $500 million, a half a billion, 
$500 million of waste, fraud and abuse in the crop insurance program. 
This is a little small but good university in central Texas.
  They also, by going actually going after these people, turned around, 
they estimated, another $1 billion worth of crop insurance fraud that 
was out there. Now, if Tarleton State University, this fine little 
school in my district, can go out and do a data mining project on a 
small program and find that kind of waste, fraud and abuse, what could 
we find in a put together rapidly massive spending program like we have 
been describing in the previous hour?
  I think that's what the American people want this government to do. 
They want to find out where we are cheating and wasting the government 
and getting rid of it, and they want us to put together a tax structure 
that encourages businesses to hire people. I had a conversation, and 
this will be the last thing I will say on this, I had a conversation 
with a family, a Hispanic family, four or five, I forget, at that 
fiesta I was telling you I went to.
  They were talking about one of them lost his job, the other two had 
gone on reduced hours, and you know what their comment was? They made a 
joke about I haven't received my check yet, about the famous percentage 
check they thought they were go going to get.
  And then they laughingly said and got serious, they said, we don't 
want a check, we want a job. And we want something to turn around to 
where people want to keep their jobs open. Let us work a full, 40-hour 
week. We want to work. We are not looking for a handout.
  I really think that's the American people and that's what they stand 
for, and I think that is our challenge that we go forward on that. But 
today there are some other issues that I think there are issues that go 
hand-in-hand with what we are doing with the economy, because in 
reality, the real issue of what drives the markets and what drives the 
confidence of the American people support the trust issue.
  It's can we trust the people we put in charge of this mess in 
Washington to be doing this thing as straight and as straightforward as 
they honestly can without any particular person or agenda or personal 
profit from the procedure, but, rather, to be doing the best they can 
for the American people. Can we trust them?
  And that's really what we are up here about. You know, when I ran for 
Congress, I made the statement, which I was loaned from John Culberson, 
his campaign, that it's all about who do you trust to go a couple of 
thousand miles away from home and do what they say they are going to 
do.
  Well, that's the real issue. The real issue is trust. If we start to 
see it, and in the last Congress, our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, they came up with the culture of corruption and used it very 
effectively to defeat Republicans and raised issues, certain issues 
that ended up with people going to prison, and I understand that.
  But that doesn't mean when we change that those issues all of a 
sudden don't matter any more to be discussed, because they need to be 
discussed, and we have issues right now that are destroying the 
underpinnings of trust that the American people have for those who are 
in charge.
  And I have, on a couple of occasions prior to today come in and 
talked about the Rangel rule. I was interested to see this morning on 
the news, some gentleman wrote in to the IRS that he had failed to pay 
his taxes and he was going to catch up when he could. Until that time, 
he was exercising the Rangel rule, and he named three or four other 
people's rule, and that he didn't expect to pay penalties and interest 
when he got caught up with his taxes.
  Well, I didn't tell you that was the law, I told you that's what I 
thought the law ought to be. But the point is somebody gets it, that's 
not fair. Somebody gets it, how can you trust somebody when they get 
special privileges and you don't?
  Then I picked up this morning's newspaper, Roll Call, and I find that 
we have got another issue that ought to be talked about, and these are 
people that we work with and we respect, and there may be an 
explanation, but I think we are owed an explanation. Congressman 
Mollohan, according to this morning's paper, his family foundation 
received $75,000 worth of free rent from a group that he helped start 
and he got millions of dollars of earmarks for so they could exist, and 
he got $75,000 worth of free rent for his family foundation.
  I don't know if that's a bad thing or a good thing, but it doesn't 
sound right. It doesn't meet the ``'tain't right test.'' Maybe it does 
meet the ``'tain't right test,'' and something needs to be explained.
  I am not calling anybody corrupt, like we were called corrupt, which, 
by the way, irritated the heck out of me. But, I am saying it ought to 
be explained, and I am saying that it is part

[[Page 6782]]

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.

                              {time}  1630

  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.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate the remarks 
that you're making regarding ethics. Ethics, after all, is the study of 
what's right and what's wrong. That is really, if you want to get down 
to the brass tacks, that is what ethics is all about--what is right, 
what is wrong.
  And what the gentleman has been talking about is the behavior of 
Members of this body, as well as the actions that Members of this body 
take, that lead to what's right and what's wrong.
  If we look at this current economic mess that we are in the middle 
of, what is the morality, what are the ethics that got us into this 
mess, what are decisions that Members of this body made?
  We are taking our fingers right now--and our mothers often said to 
us, If you point your finger at someone, remember, there's always three 
fingers that point back at yourself.
  One thing that I think would be a credit to this body is if we 
examine--now, I am a fairly new Member of this body. This is just the 
beginning of my second term. But we need to look, how did government 
contribute to this economic meltdown. How did individual Members, 
individual Senators, individual House Members contribute to this 
economic meltdown.
  I believe that my colleague, Judge John Carter, is asking the right 
questions when it comes to ethics. And I commend Speaker Pelosi, who 
said she wanted this to be the most open, ethical Congress ever when 
she took the gavel as Speaker of the House. We agreed with her. We 
applauded her for making that statement. However, what we have seen 
since that time has given us great concern.
  The same with President Obama. He has said he wants the most open, 
ethical administration. But we have been very concerned about what we 
have seen. And I would just bring up one example of that, and that 
would be one of our former colleagues--my colleague, Judge John Carter, 
brought that up himself.
  Again, we don't necessarily know the answers. We aren't a court of 
jurisdiction here. But we are asking questions that I think the 
American people have the right to know.
  We know that the Chief of Staff of President Obama was one of our 
former colleagues. A very bright, intelligent man. But we wondered what 
was missed during the Obama team's vetting process because the Chief of 
Staff served on the Freddie Mac Board of Directors. Why is this 
important?
  When you look at the economic meltdown, what we often hear is that 
all roads lead to Freddie and Fannie. That is the government-sponsored 
entity that was the guarantor of all of these mortgages that are now 
falling--many of which are falling into disarray.
  Well, our former colleague, the new Chief of Staff of the President, 
served on the Freddie Mac Board of Directors during the time that the 
Freddie Mac lied about its earnings. It was a leading contributor to 
this current economic meltdown.
  The Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Agency later singled out 
Freddie Mac, that Board of Directors of which the current Chief of 
Staff sits on. And, again, we are not condemning. We just don't know. 
We are asking questions. That is all we are doing. We are not trying to 
cast aspersions.
  But the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Agency said this; that 
the Board of Directors of Freddie Mac, of which the current Chief of 
Staff to the President sits on, contributed to the fraud that took 
place in 2000 and 2001 for, ``failing in its duty to follow up on 
matters brought to its attention.'' In other words, the Board of 
Directors ignored the red flags that we are waving in their faces.
  Later on, the Securities and Exchange Commission fined Freddie Mac 
$50 million for deliberate fraud for those years, 2000, 2001, 2002.
  The Chief of Staff currently for President Obama was paid more than 
$260,000, again, according to records and, again, this has to be 
answered, for the service that he gave while he sat on that Board of 
Directors for Freddie Mac. And after he resigned from that

[[Page 6783]]

Board to run for Congress in 2002, Freddie Mac, or the troubled 
agency's PAC, gave the current Chief of Staff of the President, gave 
his campaign $25,000, the largest single gift to a House candidate.
  Well, again, this is incredible because currently the Chief of Staff 
to the President of the United States is in the process of trying to 
dig us out of the mess that it appears Freddie Mac started, all while 
he sat on the Board of Directors and information was given to that 
Board.
  Again, we don't know. And I agree with my colleague, Judge Carter, we 
don't know what those answers are. But surely the American people 
deserve to have answers. They deserve to have answers about Freddie Mac 
and Fannie Mae. Who knew what; what did these Board of Directors know; 
what did they attempt to do, what was their role in all of this? After 
all, they were fined by the FDIC for their failure to be diligent. Who 
would have suspected that that failure could have resulted in a 
multitrillion-dollar meltdown that has brought a terrible disservice to 
our country, as well as the Community Reinvestment Act.
  We need to know what did, for instance, Chairman Frank, who's 
currently the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, of which I 
am a member, what did he know during his time? We know that he has made 
statements that Freddie Mac was in good condition, Fannie Mae was in 
good condition, when in fact they weren't in good condition.
  What we need to get are answers. What did Members of Congress know 
about these organizations? Did they contribute or didn't they 
contribute to their failure? The American people know these are ethical 
questions because ethics is an issue of what is right, of what is 
wrong, and we all stand before the American people. None of us are 
perfect. We don't pretend to be perfect. But the American people 
deserve answers because we are in a very precarious situation right now 
and, Judge Carter, I want to thank you for bringing these questions up 
before the American people
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentlelady. Reclaiming my time, I want to 
point out this is the same Rahm Emanuel who I think flippantly said, A 
crisis is a terrible thing to waste. As he added all these programs 
that had been promised programs of various sorts into the various 
spending bills that we had, he made that statement.
  That statement has been quoted on multiple occasions in the 
newspaper. Probably a flippant statement. But it shows the cynicism 
within which this whole thing is viewed, and it undermines the trust 
that we are supposed to have for the people that are in charge.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. If the gentleman would yield, I would just add to 
that. That statement has been repeated many times, and American people 
wonder exactly what that means. But it's not a standalone statement. 
That was something that the current Chief of Staff to the President 
said, but also our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, just last week 
in Brussels, advised a European audience to, Never waste a good crisis.
  Those were her words. Exactly what the Chief of Staff to the 
President said. In fact, 5 days before President Obama became 
President, he said that we are, ``5 days away from fundamentally 
transforming the United States of America.''
  Judge Carter, I think you would agree with me, the last 50 days of 
American history we have seen a fundamental transformation of the 
United States of America, and Americans have questions.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, that is exactly what we have seen. 
And that is exactly what I think these statements mean. I mean, when 
we're talking about that trust factor, I don't think that anyone, 
including the President of the United States, ran on that he was going 
to fundamentally change the United States of America. What he said was: 
Hope. Give hope a chance. We are going to bring a new world to this 
world. But he didn't say, I'm going to change the whole United States 
government. And maybe it won't. We are still a democracy. And life 
changes as we move through this 4-year period of time.
  But getting back to what I'm here to talk about, which is what we've 
been talking about, is accountability and ethics. And I want to 
continue to emphasize that I do this out of no malice toward any of the 
individuals, and I would hope that all of those issues are resolved 
favorably. The reason I would hope that is I'm not in the business, as 
others have been, of burning down this House. That's a slogan that's 
been used for years, but nobody ever went that far. That is far enough 
to where the American people distrusted the Congress. Yet, we are 
sitting still at around a 20 percent approval rating, both sides, the 
Senate and the House. So that means 80 percent of the people don't 
approve of us.
  It's because we burn down the Congress. We called each other corrupt. 
I'm a person who believes that every person has the right to be heard 
and every person has the right to a fair defense. Everyone. And I would 
hope that we hear those defenses and see those defenses, because the 
list goes on and on.
  John Murtha, with the millions of dollars he's funneling to companies 
in his district, with the explanation that they create jobs. Yet, those 
questions by Defense Department to see if they even have a purpose. 
Hilda Solis, who is the Treasurer of the America's Right to Work 
Association, which were fiduciary duties, and she lobbied Congress and 
took direction action. None of those things would entitle her to be 
holding office. She failed to pay taxes to the IRS for 16 years. 
Nothing has been done about that.
  William Jefferson is under indictment for $90,000 in cash in his 
freezer. The cold cash case. I'm sure that's going to be resolved 
sometime, now that it is in the court system. And it goes on and on.
  We have Tim Mahoney, who was using taxpayer funds to pay extortion to 
a former staffer to keep his mistress a secret from his wife. The 
voters kept him from coming to Congress. Recently, Senator Burris, who 
now it's pretty clear that there are accusations that he perjured 
himself when he gave testimony about the Governor's campaign funds, and 
yet no one seems to be wanting to do anything about that. This just 
goes on and on and on.

                              {time}  1645

  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

[[Page 6784]]

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.

                          ____________________