[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[House]
[Page 24400]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      THE MACKAY FAMILY: PART III

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I think I do tonight the end of what is a 
trilogy. I have been here on three nights talking about a family in my 
community. Two nights ago, I introduced this body to the Mackay family; 
a doctor, respected, board-certified orthopedic surgeon of 30 years in 
the community, who has been alleged by the Drug Enforcement 
Administration of having given improper prescriptions to his patients.
  Last night, I explained what happened to this family, as 20 members, 
armed, in uniform, came in and held him at bay for 4 hours as they 
searched his home and office and took all his records, his books, his 
car, his truck, all his cash, his savings, and even his retirement 
account.

                              {time}  1630

  I told how his family had nothing and lived on their food storage for 
a while until 5 months later they finally went to court and had some of 
their property returned. But the Federal Government still has the truck 
and all his books, as well as his savings and checking account, and has 
yet to make a charge or arrest this individual. It is now 15 months 
later.
  Today I finish the story. The Drug Enforcement Agency did offer a 
deal to this good doctor saying they would drop everything and it would 
all go away if he would simply surrender his license to practice 
medicine. Thinking he has done nothing wrong, he refused that offer. In 
March, the DEA started the procedures to remove his license from him.
  The administrative law judge, a judge of the executive branch, hired 
by and working for the Drug Enforcement Agency to make quasi-judicial 
decisions on the actions of that agency, decided to hold a hearing on 
his license and insisted that everyone had to come from Utah back here 
to Washington, D.C. A local court said that was silly and ordered the 
hearing to take place in Utah. The judge, somewhat piqued at that, 
should have, to make sure there was no element of antagonism or 
question about it, recused himself as he was requested. Nonetheless, he 
did preside over that hearing.
  The doctor, because he still has the chance of judicial action 
hanging over his head, was advised by his attorney to answer all 
questions by taking the Fifth Amendment. Now I don't want to say what I 
think should be the case on his license. That is still being reviewed 
and is yet to be officially decided by the DEA. Nor do I think I have 
the competence to make a lot of these decisions. What I do know is 
that, in my opinion, this doctor is no threat to the community. That 
opinion is backed up by the majority of the physicians in the community 
whose sworn depositions say the same thing.
  I do know that this family, since June of 2008, has been terrorized, 
his profession destroyed, reputation besmirched and his property 
confiscated. Yes, he went back to court to get some of it back, but why 
did he have to do that? Yes, if the DEA decides to take his license, he 
can go to court to have that overturned as well, but why should he have 
to do that? Justice, if it is to be there, should be a justice that 
works quickly so that he is charged, he goes before a jury of his peers 
and a conviction or an acquittal takes place. This nightmare of delay 
is nothing more than that for this poor family.
  Now the good part of this message is this is an isolated case. This 
is not the way most things happen. The bad part of this message is this 
is not a unique case. Other times this same thing has happened. 
Citizens should not be treated in this way. It's simply the wrong way 
to do it. The Mackay family deserves all of his resources returned to 
him until such time as a conviction does take place. He also deserves 
some kind of an apology, neither of which I have the power to do. But I 
do have the power to at least express my sympathies for one of my 
constituents whom I do not think has been treated well. And if as a 
representative of my constituents I cannot at least do that, I have no 
more value in this particular body.
  This ends the trilogy of this particular family. It does not end the 
nightmare of this family. I hope it can end soon for their benefit.

                          ____________________