[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4552-4557]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Flores), my new friend.


   Remembering Retired United States Air Force Colonel Robert Darden 
                           ``Pete'' Peterson

  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor retired United States 
Air Force Colonel Robert Darden ``Pete'' Peterson who passed away on 
March 2.
  Colonel Peterson was a member of America's Greatest Generation. He 
not only served our counsel selflessly during World War II, but also 
during the Korean war and the Vietnam war.
  Colonel Robert Darden Peterson was born in Jonesboro, Arkansas, in 
1923. After graduating from high school, Pete would go on to attend the 
University of Mississippi with a football scholarship.
  After his first football season at Ole Miss, he enlisted in the 
United States Army Air Corps to aid the war effort in Europe. Colonel 
Peterson trained as a B-17 pilot and became an aircraft commander at 
age 20. During World War II, he was a member of the 8th Air Force and 
completed 28 combat missions.
  After World War II, Pete briefly returned to civilian life only to be 
recalled to Active Duty in 1947. He would serve as assistant chief of 
directorate of combat operations during the Korean war and the Vietnam 
war.
  He was responsible for all surveillance and control of the Strategic 
Air Command winged resources within Southeast Asia.
  During 1967 and 1968, Colonel Peterson served as air operations 
planner for all tactical and support air activities in the southern 
portion of North Vietnam and the Southeast Asia interdiction area. He 
remained a combat pilot, flying 19 combat missions in support 
operations in Vietnam.
  In 1968, Colonel Peterson was assigned to the Pentagon as Air Force 
actions officer for programs pertaining to the Strategic Air Command.
  In 1970, he was assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Operational 
Directorate. Following his assignments in Washington, he accepted the 
post of deputy base commander at Dyess Air Force Base, a Strategic Air 
Command base in Abilene, Texas.
  In 1976, Colonel Peterson retired from military service and lived 
most of his retirement years in Texas. During his 33 years of service 
to our country, he flew B-17s, B-36s, and B-52s and logged over 7,000 
flying hours.
  He was so trusted and experienced, that he was assigned to America's 
nuclear Air Force in the Strategic Air Command. As a pilot, he was one 
of the first in our country to fly with atomic weapons and hydrogen 
weapons.
  Colonel Peterson was a highly decorated officer. His military honors 
include the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Meritorious Service Medal, 
the Air Medal, the Bronze Star, and numerous other medals and awards 
that reflected his dedication to serving our country in the United 
States Air Force.
  A review written by a commanding officer during Colonel Peterson's 
military career best sums up the way he lived his life at home and when 
on duty. The CO wrote:

       Peterson requires a lot of his crew. However, he gives more 
     than he demands of others.

  Colonel Peterson passed away earlier this month and was laid to rest 
on March 7.
  Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Colonel 
``Pete'' Peterson. His survivors include 7 children, 15 grandchildren, 
17 great-grandchildren, and numerous nieces and nephews.
  He will be forever remembered as a patriot, a pilot, a soldier, a 
husband, a father, a grandfather, and as an American hero. We thank him 
and his family for their outstanding service and sacrifice to our 
country.
  As I close, I ask everyone to continue praying for our country during 
these difficult times and for our military men and women who protect us 
from external threats and our first responders who protect us from 
internal threats right here at home.
  God bless our military men and women, and God bless the United States 
of America.
  Mr. GOHMERT. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Reed), my friend, such time as he may consume.


                              NO MORE Week

  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me time to address the Chamber today.
  I rise today to talk about the NO MORE campaign. NO MORE is the first 
unifying symbol meant to express support for ending sexual assault and 
domestic violence, similar to the Pink Ribbon campaign for breast 
cancer.
  Mr. Speaker, next week, March 17-21 is NO MORE week. This symbol will 
be active throughout social media, ad campaigns, and throughout our 
country, to highlight for men and women across the country to come 
together to stand up to end sexual violence by saying ``No more.''
  This proliferation is supported by organizations, such as the Avon 
Foundation for Women, Mary Kay, National Alliance to End Sexual 
Violence, National Network to End Domestic Violence, the YWCA, and 
Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women.
  Mr. Speaker, I come here today to say no more because of something 
very personal to me. Within the last year, my family experienced 
firsthand the issues of sexual assault.
  My beautiful niece, 18 years old, was raped. We saw that event impact 
a young life--our family--in a way that I cannot express, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1145

  I come here today to say, ``No more.''
  Last night, I had an opportunity to speak with my niece. I said: If 
you had an opportunity to address the country and to address the 
Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives, what would you say? How 
would you answer the question ``no more because''?
  Essentially, what she said was: ``No more because'' there are no 
excuses.
  No one can make an excuse as to why sexual assault is acceptable. No 
one should offer an excuse that a woman wanted it, that a woman asked 
for it.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to change the culture in our country as we are 
afraid to talk about this issue. So many women have been impacted. Men 
across the country have not been taught how to deal with this issue in 
an open and honest fashion. March 17 to 21 is an opportunity for us as 
a nation to say, ``No more.'' We are going to come together in a 
national effort and say: Sexual violence is not acceptable; domestic 
violence is not acceptable. We are going to discuss it openly and 
amongst our country and fellow countrymen in a way that ultimately will 
lead to there being no more.
  In having had to experience this firsthand for the last 12 months, I 
can tell you that it is time.

[[Page 4553]]

  On behalf of my niece and my family, Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members 
and all people across the country to look at the NO MORE campaign and 
to look at this symbol and to discuss it with your sons, your 
daughters, your sisters, your brothers, your mothers, and your fathers 
and say: We can't accept this any longer.
  Then we end sexual violence once and for all, because now is the time 
to say, ``No more.''
  God bless my niece. God bless my family. God bless this great 
country.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you for those stirring and important words.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Holding), my friend.


                              Mack Pierce

  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, a small but vibrant community called 
Nahunta, which is hidden off the beaten track in eastern North 
Carolina, sadly said good-bye last year to one of its most beloved 
residents. Mack Pierce, who lived and breathed Nahunta for 81 years, 
passed away on November 3.
  Now, up here in Washington, D.C., the title ``Pork King'' might not 
be a compliment, but in Nahunta, Mack Pierce's company wore the crown 
proudly. He founded the Nahunta Pork Center in 1975, and grew it into 
one of the largest pork retail displayers in the Nation. In the eastern 
portion of my congressional district, it is impossible to miss the 
enormous yellow signs up and down the interstate that declare the 
Nahunta Pork Center as the ``Pork King,'' a treasured title in one of 
the country's largest pork-producing States.
  Mack had a keen insight for business and an unwavering commitment to 
his family, his faith, and his community. Rather than taking his 
business to a larger city as it grew, Mack chose to build a successful, 
stable business that would bring employees and customers alike to his 
hometown of Nahunta. As a result, thanks to Mack, Nahunta is a 
household name in eastern North Carolina, and it is recognizable to its 
customers up and down the east coast. The Nahunta Pork Center has 
remained in the same location since it opened, and it has grown 
substantially as its customer base has increased. Throughout his life, 
Mack focused on providing the best product and outstanding service, and 
his hard work helped put Nahunta on the map. Business, though, was 
second to family and community.
  If there were an opportunity to volunteer, Mack was first in line. 
For over 70 years, he was a member of the Nahunta Friends Meeting, 
where he served in many capacities. At his church, Mack served as an 
elder and as a finance committee member. He sang in the choir, taught 
Sunday school, and mentored young folks at the church. In the 
community, Mack was a founding member of the Nahunta Fire Department. 
He served as a trustee at the nearby Mount Olive College, and he sat on 
the board of directors of the BB&T Bank. At home, he and his wife, 
Jean, spent 61 wonderful years together. They had two sons, Larry and 
Freddie, and four grandchildren. Mack cherished his role as a husband, 
as a father, and as a grandfather.
  In his lifetime, Mack Pierce enriched the community of Nahunta in too 
many ways to count, and he will be greatly missed.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many great Americans. There are some who are 
exceptional, and it is always a pleasure to hear about a life well 
lived, someone who will meet his Maker and who will hear the words 
``well done, good and faithful servant.''
  We have some who do a rather sloppy job with the duties they are 
given. It specifically brings to mind, Mr. Speaker, the National 
Journal Daily. It has got a picture of my friend Justin Amash on the 
front with the words--in big letters--``Drunken Karaoke with Justin 
Amash.'' Yet, when you read the story, it is very clear that Justin 
Amash didn't have anything to drink. It was not a drunken karaoke 
event.
  As my friend Mr. Amash puts it in a letter that many of us have 
signed:

       The story concerned a fundraiser for Representative Thomas 
     Massie, which was held earlier this week. The fundraiser was 
     hosted by a number of Virginia Young Republicans at an Irish 
     pub in Clarendon. One of your reporters who regularly covers 
     House Republicans attended the event. As you reported, 
     Representative Amash spoke as a guest at the event. He 
     introduced Representative Massie, and talked briefly to a 
     crowd of young people about public policy and principles that 
     many Republicans share.
       After the event officially ended--not part of the event--
     Representative Amash stuck around to take pictures with fans 
     in the crowd as a courtesy to the Young Republican hosts, and 
     there were some who stayed for the usual Tuesday night 
     karaoke. Representative Amash did not participate in any 
     karaoke singing or drinking.

  That is even noted in the article. That is why it was such a surprise 
that the National Journal would have as the headline--front page, top 
story--``Drunken Karaoke with Justin Amash.'' That is libelist. That is 
outrageous, and particularly--I did some checking--it turns out that 
the National Journal has a contract with the House of Representatives 
to provide everybody a copy of the print version for $617,000 per year.
  With that kind of sleazy title, I think it is time to relook at that 
contract. I mean, we all know the National Journal's ratings of 
conservatives. Justin Amash usually gets rated by the National Journal 
as one of the more liberal when he is, if not the most conservative, 
one of the most conservative. So we have known that National Journal 
reporting in some areas has been very suspect, but that is just as 
sleazy as it gets. A front-page, top-story apology to Justin Amash is 
owed by the National Journal. That is the least they can do.
  Since we are part of the government here in Congress, it is important 
to note when things go well, and it is important to note when things 
don't go well and when there are problems.
  There was a major story yesterday afternoon. The Daily Caller reports 
``Health and Human Services Official Resigns, Pens a Must-Read Rebuke 
of Federal Bureaucracy.'' It is an article posted by Caroline May, and 
its original publication is in AAAS news.sciencemag.org by Jocelyn 
Kaiser.
  This story from The Daily Caller reports:

       A Health and Human Services official has resigned after 
     dealing with the frustration of the ``profoundly 
     dysfunctional'' Federal bureaucracy which left him ``offended 
     as an American taxpayer.''
       In a resignation letter obtained by ScienceInsider, David 
     Wright, Director of the Office of Research Integrity, ORI, 
     which oversees and monitors possible research misconduct, 
     offers a scathing rebuke of the unwieldy and inefficient 
     bureaucracy that he dealt with for the 2 years he served in 
     that position.
       In his letter to Assistant Secretary for Health Howard Koh, 
     Wright explains that the 35 percent of his job that was spent 
     working with science investigators in his department ``has 
     been one of the greatest pleasures of my long career.'' The 
     majority of his duties, however, represented his worst job 
     ever. ``The rest of my role as ORI Director has been the very 
     worst job I have ever had, and it occupies up to 65 percent 
     of my time. That part of the job is spent navigating the 
     remarkably dysfunctional HHS bureaucracy to secure resources 
     and to, yes, get permission for ORI to serve the research 
     community. I knew coming into this job about the bureaucratic 
     limitations of the Federal Government, but I had no idea how 
     stifling it would be.''

  I want to add parenthetically here that he is talking about the 
remarkably dysfunctional Health and Human Services Department that 
wants to make your decisions for you about your health care. They want 
to tell you and have told millions and millions of Americans that your 
health insurance is no good even though most Americans liked the 
insurance they had and wanted to keep it and were promised by the 
President and so many friends across the aisle, if they liked it, they 
could keep it. It turns out that was absolutely not true.
  The HHS, the Health and Human Services Department, in being as 
bureaucratic, as negligent, and as dysfunctional as they are, is what 
every Democrat in this body and in the Senate and without a single 
Republican vote wanted to shove in control of every American's health 
care. Now we are finding out just how disastrous that was.
  This article about Director Wright goes on to read:


[[Page 4554]]

       According to Wright, activities that in his capacity as an 
     academic administrator took a day or two, took weeks and 
     months in the Federal Government. He recalled an instance in 
     which he could not get approval for a $35 cost to have 
     cassette tapes converted to CDs. He eventually was able to 
     get them converted in 20 minutes for free by a university. In 
     another instance, he ``urgently needed to fill a vacancy,'' 
     but was told there was a secret priority list. Sixteen months 
     later, he wrote, the position was still unfilled.

  Again, parenthetically as to this article about HHS dysfunctionality, 
it is important to note that these people who took 16 months and still 
didn't fill a position because they had a secret priority list are the 
same ones who are going to have a list as to who can get what surgery 
at what age. Some people bristled when Sarah Palin called it a ``death 
panel,'' but they are going to decide who can get a pacemaker, at what 
age, and who cannot. So, as I had to do a couple of times, they are not 
going to have to actually sign an order sentencing somebody to death, 
but it is basically not that different. When you say someone who must 
have a pacemaker in order to live can't have it, you might as well be 
signing a death penalty order.

                              {time}  1200

  This is an organization that cannot get their act together--not to 
build a Web site, not to protect people's most personal information, 
not to even get a $35 authorization to convert cassettes to CD. If they 
can't do that, do you really want them deciding whether you get a 
pacemaker or not? Whether you get a bypass surgery you need or not?
  A conversation with somebody in my district who came from Canada 
keeps coming back to me. He told me about his father, in the Canadian 
glorious health care system that everybody got shoved under, where the 
government controlled who got pacemakers, who got surgery, who got 
what, needed bypass surgery, and was on a list. Two years later, he 
didn't get it. And he died because he hadn't had bypass surgery.
  I said, Well, that is amazing. I didn't know it took 2 years. What 
was the problem? He said, They kept moving people on the list in front 
of him. I said, My understanding is it is a crime in Canada to give 
anything of value to get someone to move you up the list. He said, 
That's right, but there is a panel that moves people up the list as 
they feel appropriate. They didn't move my father up the list. He 
didn't get bypass surgery for 2 years. And so he died.
  If someone, unknown of whether he has insurance or not, were to go 
into a hospital here in Washington or in my hometown in Tyler, Texas, 
or Longview, or basically anywhere, and he is immediately found to need 
a bypass, they are going in and doing the bypass. But not in Canada. 
Not in England. And not here in the United States, once the group that 
shoved ObamaCare down the throats of the American people have their way 
and this bureaucracy with secret priority lists gets to tell you what 
you get or don't get in the way of health care.
  I just cannot imagine thinking Americans wanting the government, and 
particularly Health and Human Services, making those kind of decisions.
  We found out this week, when my friend Tom Price asked how many 
people have paid for their health insurance, they couldn't tell us. 
Secretary Sebelius doesn't know. Can't know.
  Do you think they are going to know when you, Mr. Speaker, need 
bypass surgery? They won't.
  Some will say, Well, in Congress they probably get special treatment. 
They have no idea. We won't get special treatment. We will end up like 
the people in Canada, going on a list.
  I read an article sometime back about England. They have got a new 
target, it said. They were trying to adjust down the amount of time it 
took to get surgery or treatment or whatever a doctor prescribed after 
it was prescribed. They knew it wouldn't be done overnight, but if 
everybody pitched in, everybody worked hard, they thought they might 
get the delay in getting the surgery or treatment you needed down to a 
10-month wait. If everybody worked hard, eventually they could get it 
down to 10 months.
  I thought, Good grief. And you want to do that to America? You don't 
have to wait 10 months for a mammogram or surgery or a biopsy, if it's 
needed.
  These people that keep saying, You Republicans have no alternatives. 
We have all kinds of alternatives.
  What I keep encouraging our conference and the RSC to do--and I am 
hoping one of our groups here is going to do it--is start having 
informal hearings and bring in witnesses so that we do what President 
Obama promised when he was a senator. If I am President, he promised 
us, we are going to have debate over health care. We are going to do it 
on C-SPAN. We want the whole country to see who is standing up for 
whom.
  That is what I want. That is what we need. Let America see who stands 
for them and who stands for the big, bloated, secret priority-listed 
bureaucracies like Health and Human Services.
  This article goes on about HHS. David Wright, who has now resigned, 
said:

       On another occasion I asked your deputy why you didn't 
     conduct an evaluation by the Op Division of the immediate 
     office administrative services to try to improve them. She 
     responded that that had been tried a few years ago and the 
     results were so negative that no further evaluations have 
     been conducted.

  David Wright closed by saying he plans to publish his daily log to 
further shed light on his work. He said:

       As for the rest, I'm offended as an American taxpayer that 
     the Federal bureaucracy--at least the part I've labored in--
     is so profoundly dysfunctional. I'm hardly the first person 
     to have made that discovery, but I'm saddened by the fact 
     that there is so little discussion, much less outrage, 
     regarding the problem. To promote healthy and productive 
     discussion, I intend to publish a version of the daily log 
     I've kept as ORI Director in order to share my experience and 
     observations with my colleagues in government and with 
     members of the regulated research community.

  These people at HHS, who couldn't find their rear end with both 
hands, are going to tell you what you can have done to your body?
  I have heard friends across the aisle for so many years now talk 
about how they want the government out of our bedroom. Are you kidding 
me? With ObamaCare, they are in your bedroom, they are in your 
nightstand, they are in your bathroom, your kitchen cabinet. They are 
everywhere in your house and outside your house you try to go. This 
puts them in charge of your most personal private matters.
  It is time to repeal ObamaCare. It is time to have an alternative 
that some of us have brought to the front.
  One of the things we need to do is not make sure everybody has high 
cost insurance. It is to make sure everybody has accessible, affordable 
health care.
  When you combine all the money the Federal Government and the State 
governments spend providing Medicare and Medicaid and you divide it by 
the number of households in America that have someone on Medicare or 
Medicaid, which my office tried to do back in 2009 and 2010, it was 
tough getting the information on how much we are spending on all this. 
People could only give you an estimate. The same people that want to 
run your life and tell you what you can have in health care can't even 
tell you what they are doing.
  But the best estimates we can get from these government sources and 
the best estimates from the Census Bureau--because they couldn't give 
us an exact number--indicates that back 4 years ago we were spending 
about $20,000 to $30,000 per household for people that had somebody on 
Medicare and Medicaid. It was most likely closer to the $30,000 number.
  That is what inspired me. I told Newt Gingrich about it, and he said, 
You have got to get that in bill form and get it scored. It may change 
the whole debate in Congress about health care. This is nearly a year 
before ObamaCare was passed.
  So we got it in bill form, and it included giving seniors the option 
for the first time since the sixties to really control their own health 
care. Because we would buy them not bronze or some other kind of health 
insurance, we would buy them the best Cadillac insurance you can get. 
We wouldn't require that they had to have maternity

[[Page 4555]]

care, because there are not that many 80- and 90-year-old people that 
need the maternity care that this administration is forcing.
  It would give them Cadillac insurance for what they did need, and 
give them a high deductible. At this point, we might say the deductible 
would be $5,000, $7,000, or something like that. Whatever the amount 
the high deductible was, my bill, my proposal, was we are better off 
giving every senior on Medicare or Medicaid cash in a health savings 
account with a debit card that is coded so it will only pay for purely 
health care items, and you empower a senior to get what they need--to 
go to the doctor or health care provider they want to go to and not 
need some bureaucratic fool in HHS to tell you whether or not you can 
see this person.
  We have got to get power back into the hands of our seniors and into 
the hands of the poor. They are entitled to be able to choose who they 
want to go to, I would think.
  Let's empower people and quit punishing people simply because they 
are middle class and they have got a job and they are paying taxes. Let 
them have the same opportunities as those they are paying for.
  What is going on is outrageous. And just when we think it wouldn't 
get much worse, we have this article in Power Line, ``Bill Henck: 
Inside the IRS,'' by Scott Johnson. He notes:

       As noted at the top, William Henck has worked inside the 
     IRS office . . .

  And that is the IRS office. How is the IRS linked to a discussion 
about health care? They are going to enforce ObamaCare. We have got the 
IRS, as if they don't have enough power now, is going to be in charge 
of enforcing health care.
  Most of the Republicans I know want to eliminate the IRS. Some want 
to go to a fair tax. I would like to have a flat tax. I think it is 
time to have that debate and go to whichever wins the debate and gets 
rid of the IRS.
  My brilliant friend--and I am surprised he let's me call him his 
friend, but he is a brilliant man--Arthur Laffer, the genius behind 
turning the devastating economy around under President Carter, I talked 
to Arthur about this and I said, I would like to go to a flat tax--I 
know a lot of people want to go to a fair tax--so we can get rid of the 
IRS, but somebody is going to have to enforce it. How would we do that 
if there were no IRS? Arthur says, I have got it all spelled out. I 
have got it written out.
  I am hoping some of my colleagues here will meet with Arthur and let 
him give them the one, two, threes.
  He said, You don't need an IRS. He said, The big mistake with the IRS 
is that the Federal Government set up an entity that not only gets to 
pick and choose whom they audit, they get to enforce what they find and 
what they do.
  So they can pick either at random or intentionally and maliciously. 
Even though that violates the law--we have seen it happen already--they 
can pick who they want to audit, whose life they want to make 
miserable. And then if they don't comply with what they find and what 
they order, even though it may be very wrong, then they are capable or 
have the authority to take everything they have.
  That is why my brilliant friend, Arthur Laffer, says, You set up a 
very small auditing entity, but you cannot give them the power to 
enforce their audits. That is too much power for one government agency.

                              {time}  1215

  So you have a very small auditing agency and, as Arthur said, you 
don't allow them to ever pick who they want to audit. Every audit is 
selected at random, so they don't get to pick on people they dislike. 
They only audit whatever person or entity randomly is selected by the 
system. And if they were to do otherwise, they would break the law and 
be subject to punishment themselves.
  These days, now, if somebody calls the IRS out, then they are 
normally going to get hit up with an audit and be treated maliciously 
by the IRS.
  So this article goes on. It says:

       I have been an attorney in the IRS Office of Chief Counsel 
     for over 26 years. Over a number of years, I have attempted, 
     largely unsuccessfully, to alert the public to abuse within 
     the IRS. One of my kids suggested I contact a blog, and Power 
     Line has graciously agreed to publish this account.
       I do not personally know whether the IRS has targeted 
     conservative groups or individuals, but I do know that the 
     environment within the agency, the IRS, is ripe for such 
     activity, and there is nothing to prevent it from occurring.
       As stated in more detail below, I have personally witnessed 
     improper giveaways of billions of dollars to taxpayers with 
     inside access at the agency, bullying of elderly taxpayers, 
     the coverup of managerial embezzlement and misappropriation 
     of thousands of dollars in government funds, and a 
     retaliatory audit.
       I have also heard credible accounts of, among other things, 
     further improper giveaways, blatant sexual harassment, and 
     anti-Semitism. All of these have been swept under the rug.

  Parenthetically, in this article, where this person, this attorney in 
the Office of Chief Counsel for over 26 years, points out, anti-
Semitism in the IRS? We are seeing it grow.
  I mean, when I heard, as a child, in history class, about the 
Holocaust, and I read that Eisenhower required that people in the 
community be required to come help clean up these horrid concentration 
camps where gas ovens and other ways were used to torture and kill 
Jews, I thought, for Eisenhower to order that, that is a little rough, 
you know, for these people to have to come out and clean that up. I 
mean, nobody will ever deny there was a Holocaust. There is too much 
information about it.
  Now we have people denying there is a Holocaust, and as I understand 
it, there are five main Jewish groups that support Israel, and all of 
them are being mistreated by the IRS, and they don't want anybody to 
talk about it because they don't want to get targeted any more than 
they already have.
  Then we see, from an attorney in the Office of the Chief Counsel, or 
general counsel, for 26 years, he says, I have seen the anti-Semitism 
within the IRS. So I hope my Jewish friends on the other side of the 
aisle, my Jewish friends across the country that have not been involved 
in politics, will wake up and help us clean up the mess in the Federal 
Government by speaking up about the prejudice and the bias that they 
have had to live with.
  This article goes on:

       A number of years ago, a manager in my office, there in the 
     Chief Counsel's Office, the IRS, was embezzling thousands of 
     dollars in travel funds. His actions were common knowledge, 
     but other managers, including a currently high-ranking 
     executive in the Office of Chief Counsel, did not report him.
       I did report his conduct to the Treasury Inspector General 
     for Tax Administration, but they did not investigate the 
     matter for a considerable length of time. After I complained 
     to my local Congressman's office, the Treasury Inspector 
     General for Tax Administration finally forwarded the matter 
     to the Office of Chief Counsel to be handled internally.
       Eventually, the Office of Chief Counsel made the manager 
     pay the money back, but took no other disciplinary action, 
     even though others who committed the same type of scheme were 
     punished severely.
       The manager in question has led a charmed life. Several 
     years after this episode he decided to retire, but was 
     starting a new job at a different city 2 months before he was 
     eligible to retire.
       He could have retired early and taken annual leave for 2 
     months before retiring. However, he did not want to take 
     annual leave because Federal employees can cash out annual 
     leave when they retire.
       Rather than have him burn at least $20,000 in annual leave, 
     the IRS transferred him back to the new city, but did not 
     give him any work, allowing him to work at his new job while 
     still receiving a government paycheck.
       I obtained an email from this manager in which he admitted 
     that he had no work, that the IRS was not planning to give 
     him any work in the new city, and that he was working on 
     matters related to his new job while at the IRS.
       I forwarded this email to the Treasury Inspector General 
     for Tax Administration, TIGTA, but of course was ignored by 
     both TIGTA and the Office of Chief Counsel.
       TIGTA has a well-deserved reputation for protecting IRS 
     managers. In fact, a TIGTA agent once stated that ``We don't 
     investigate IRS managers.''
       At the same time, the manager was embezzling travel funds. 
     I was working on a case involving what I call the Elmer's 
     Glue scam. Tax shelter operators misused synthetic fuel 
     credit.

  And for those who don't know what that means, that is part of the 
green

[[Page 4556]]

economy that this administration wants us all to participate in. The 
bottom line is, it gives them more control over our personal lives. 
That is what the movement is about.
  But nonetheless, there are some that are dedicated to it that really 
believe in it. But the people at the top, they know it is all about 
more government controlling people's lives.
  But anyway, he says:

       Tax shelter operators misused a synthetic fuel credit by 
     spraying watered down household glue on marketable coal, 
     degrading the coal, but producing huge tax credits for 
     investors. This was costing the Treasury at least $3 billion 
     a year. The IRS turned a blind eye toward this activity and 
     harassed those of us in the agency who were trying to stop 
     it.
       Since I had witnessed TIGTA help cover up embezzlement, I 
     decided to go to the press about the Elmer's Glue scam. The 
     Wall Street Journal published a story about it, but the scam 
     continued.
       As a result of complaining about TIGTA's inaction regarding 
     embezzlement that is within the IRS, and speaking out about 
     the Elmer's Glue scam, my wife and I were subjected to a 
     retaliatory IRS audit.
       After an experienced revenue agent from Fairfax spent an 
     entire day auditing our tax returns, he stated that they were 
     clean. Soon thereafter, he called me and apologetically 
     stated that his ``special projects'' manager had ordered him 
     to return to Richmond and keep digging into our returns. He 
     stated that his regular manager would not have ordered this.

  In parentheses David Wright says:

       I believe that because in 26 years at the IRS, I have never 
     heard of an agent being sent back to continue a 
     straightforward individual return that had been judged to be 
     clean.

  So David Wright says:

       I contacted The Washington Post, gave them my privacy 
     waiver to discuss our tax returns with the Service. When the 
     Post presented that waiver to the Service, they quickly 
     dropped our audit.

  Now, I happen to know many IRS agents who are decent, good, 
hardworking, honorable people. They are the kind of people I would want 
working in an auditing agency like Arthur Laffer has talked about 
because I know they would be fair, they are honest.
  These are the kind of people that complained to me when the Secretary 
of the Treasury was given to Tim Geithner, even though he had signed, 4 
years in a row, under oath, under penalty of perjury, that he would pay 
the tax on the funds the International Monetary Fund were paying him if 
they would not deduct the money he was supposed to pay, so he swore he 
would pay it personally. And then he blamed it on TurboTax, and he paid 
it back after he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury.
  But there were IRS agents, honest, honorable, decent IRS agents all 
over the country who were outraged that Timothy Geithner was appointed 
to the Secretary of the Treasury, to be the boss of people, these 
people, these front-line workers in the IRS, who made it very clear, if 
they ever even underpaid, so they had to pay additional taxes at the 
end of the year, they would be fired.
  And here was a guy who didn't pay his taxes for 4 years, not until he 
got appointed to be Secretary of the Treasury, that was put in charge 
of all of these very honest, upright, decent people who happen to work 
at an agency that includes some who are incredibly corrupt and who 
protect the corruption as David Wright is pointing out.
  Well, David Wright goes on and says:

       Within the past few years, the IRS has used a ``cadre'' to 
     pursue a particular type of case. I was assigned one of those 
     cases that was in Tax Court. I believed we should concede the 
     case in question because our legal position was incorrect. As 
     a result, I was called a quitter and a coward, was threatened 
     with retaliation and, in fact, suffered retaliation.
       The cadre--he says I hate that term, but that is what they 
     call themselves, pushed cases with an obvious legal defect. 
     Taxpayers were denigrated in writing as ``upper class 
     twits.'' And one cadre member stated that, despite the 
     weakness in our legal position, the taxpayers in these cases 
     were typically elderly, and could be forced into settling 
     their cases.
       I stated my ethical concerns to management, and they were 
     answered with a short non-response and did not even bother to 
     ask for the name of the cadre member who stated that we could 
     bully elderly taxpayers into settling their cases.
       He adds, the Tax Court ultimately rejected the Service's 
     position regarding that legal issue.

  I mean, it ought to scare Americans profoundly that the IRS that is 
going to be in charge of enforcing the health care law thinks it is 
okay, at least some think it is okay, to bully elderly because they are 
elderly and they will get scared and they will pay the government 
rather than have the government come down on them. So even though they 
don't owe it, we can scare them into paying money because they are 
elderly.
  I mean, Americans ought to be up in arms over this kind of abuse. And 
to think that a majority in Congress in 2010 wanted this same 
government controlling everybody's health care?
  Americans need to wake up. This is a danger to their life and their 
liberty.
  He goes on and points out more abuses that shock the conscience. It 
is outrageous what the IRS--I am sorry--some in the IRS have been able 
to get away with, this same government that a majority in 2010 trusted 
with every American's health care.

                              {time}  1230

  We have a story this week from Breitbart. Robert Wilde reports that 
there are emails now that reveal the Obama administration shut down the 
World War II Memorial, knowing the World War II veterans were coming.
  One email that they cite from a government official says:

       While I understand that these memorials have remained 
     accessible to the public during past shutdowns (I'd imagine 
     with the Mall being so open, it'd probably be more manpower-
     intensive to try to completely close them), I wanted to do my 
     due diligence and make 100 percent sure that people could 
     visit the outdoor memorials on the National Mall in the event 
     of a shutdown.

  I can say, from having been out there on October 1 and having pulled 
one of the two barricades aside so that our World War II veterans could 
go through the open-air memorial dedicated to them and to their friends 
that died serving with them--and I saw that, wow, they have shut down 
an open-air, open-sidewalk, walk-through, roll-through in your 
wheelchair memorial.
  It has cost them money to bring in all these barricades, and I have 
been there at all hours of the day and night, to the Lincoln Memorial, 
to the World War II Memorial; and most of the time, it is hard to see a 
park employee out there, but eventually, if you look hard enough, you 
will see one or two out there.
  The day after the gentleman from Mississippi, Steve Palazzo, and I 
picked those barricades up and moved them back after I cut the yellow 
tape, the next day, I counted them--16 Park Service police--many of 
them on mounted horses that you never see out there, out there to try 
to intimidate World War II veterans from being able to go through for 
the one time they were in Washington in their lives to see those places 
that listed where they fought and where friends died.
  As one man with tears told me--he pointed to the islands in the 
Pacific that were listed, the names of his friends who fought with him 
and died on each of those islands, and this administration, which wants 
to control everybody's health care, wanted to deprive those World War 
II veterans--knowingly deprive them of just this one chance to roll 
through in a wheelchair and see what was dedicated to them. It is 
tragic, what is going on. It is time Americans awoke.
  Ben Franklin is credited with saying, in essence, those who are 
willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither. We are seeing 
that. Americans have given up so much liberty over and over, saying: 
well, at least it is going to keep me safer.
  At what point do you say enough giving the Federal Government power? 
We want our liberty that the Founders established in the Constitution, 
that war after war was fought to provide, that the Declaration 
acknowledged were rights that were endowed by our Creator.
  Some ask: Well, if these rights are endowed by our Creator to life, 
liberty, and pursuit of happiness, why doesn't everybody in the world 
have them?
  It is real easy. God, the Creator, gave us freedom of choice. We are 
free to choose things that would do us harm

[[Page 4557]]

and free to choose the right way that would lead to life, liberty, and 
pursuit of happiness.
  We happen to have been blessed by either being born here or have come 
to a Nation where we had those liberties, where they were fought for, 
where the things that were taught in church, that were spoken of in the 
Bible--the Bible is the most quoted book in the history of this 
Chamber, especially in the first 150 years, and especially by those who 
fought against slavery, saying: How can we expect God to continue 
blessing America when we are putting our brothers and sisters in chains 
and bondage?
  Those individuals laid the groundwork--the foundation for us to have 
this life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We owe them to leave it 
to the next generation.
  Poll after poll say this is probably the first time in American 
history that a generation will leave a country less free, with less 
opportunity to their children.
  That is why I ran for Congress. I want to do everything I can to keep 
that from happening.
  I was taught as a Boy Scout--especially as an Eagle Scout--we were 
never to leave a place worse off than we found it; and if we don't turn 
this thing around, we will be the generation that does that. God help 
us and God forgive us if we do. We simply cannot do that.
  When we have people who have stepped forward, as these in the IRS and 
Health and Human Services have, to say: Warning, red flag, red light, 
stop. There is too much abuse here. Demand your freedom back. Quit 
turning it over to Federal agencies.
  When those people are rising up and saying wake up, America, we had 
better wake up. When we have a President who said, over and over as a 
Senator, that we cannot allow a President to usurp more and more power 
away from Congress, it showed us that he knew right from wrong in this 
government.
  Now, the same President is, by executive order, changing the law 
repeatedly, and it is time this House rose up and said: we are not 
funding one single part of the executive branch that usurps power that 
is not afforded it in the Constitution.
  We have the power to do that. Why? Because the Founders put it in the 
Constitution, and just like our Creator endowed us with certain 
inalienable rights, just like some parents have plenty to endow to 
their children when they die, the children don't enjoy those benefits 
if they won't claim them and be willing to fight for them.
  There are always people--evil people who want to take away those 
benefits, take away those rights; so no matter what someone inherits, 
if they don't accept it, claim it, and be willing to fight for it, they 
will not keep those benefits.
  We owe the next generation what we were given and better, and until 
we start holding the executive branch accountable--at least those in it 
that are not complying with the law, that are violating the law--we are 
destined to be that evil, narcissistic, self-serving generation that 
leaves the country worse off than we found it.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that enough of us will arise to prevent 
that from happening.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________