[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 5972-5977]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                UNLEASHING AMERICA'S ECONOMIC POTENTIAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Mimi Walters of California). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2015, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the majority leader.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by yielding to the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke), one of the great freshmen here 
leading our institution.


                        Honoring the Service of
                        Rear Admiral Brian Losey

  Mr. ZINKE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Rear Admiral 
Brian Losey, the current commander of Naval Special Warfare Command, 
our Nation's top U.S. SEAL. He is entrusted with the honor of 
commanding all SEALs, all special boat units, and all support staff 
across this great country and across many theatres.
  I have had the privilege of serving with Brian Losey, SEAL Team 6, 
Red Team, and I can tell you that Brian is an outstanding officer.
  It is an obligation of every officer to take action when he sees 
wrong, and Brian Losey did just that. He saw a problem and took action. 
He took decisive action because he knew the actions of others around 
him were wrong.
  Yet, once again, an entrusted, entrenched bureaucracy was allowed to 
hide behind threats, hide behind whistleblowers, hide behind rules that 
were intended to protect command and not to erode it. And yet, those 
accusations discredited a great officer and the head of the United 
States Navy SEALs.
  I understand these protections are important, and they are necessary, 
but we cannot allow such protections to go against accountability and 
against the sanctity of command.
  In this case, the Navy reviewed the investigation on Admiral Brian 
Losey. They found him to be innocent and wrongfully accused. I have 
seen the evidence and went through it line by line. I fully support the 
Navy's conclusion and believe that they properly reviewed this case.
  The DOD had different conclusions, and I believe those DOD 
conclusions from the IG are flawed and are cherry-picked.
  Admiral Losey is highly regarded by his subordinates, all of the 
Naval Special Warfare community, and all SEALs who have served with him 
and under his command. This includes the Navy SEAL standing before you. 
I have known this man and his family for 30 years.
  Let me just give you a snapshot of Admiral Losey's leadership under 
his command of Naval Special Warfare. The SEALs, and those under his 
command, have executed 654 total missions, have killed 461 high-value 
targets--every one of those targets, if given a chance, would do 
grievous harm to our Nation--have captured 60, wounded 32, rescued an 
American hostage, deployed an average of 250 days of the year.
  In 2015 alone, in Iraq, Naval Special Warfare Command and its 
components were responsible for the killing or capture of over 3,000 
enemy combatants.
  Admiral Losey personally deployed to Operation Inherent Resolve, 
Operation Enduring Freedom in the Trans-Sahara. He has deployed to 30 
countries. Naval Special Warfare forces under his command are deployed 
to 70 countries across this great globe. They advanced partner forces' 
security capabilities, training over 6,000 of our allies.
  Madam Speaker, America, our men, women, and children, both at home 
and abroad, are able to sleep at night due to the leadership of Admiral 
Losey and those forces that he commands.
  Admiral Brian Losey, I thank you for your dedicated service to this 
country. As a former teammate and United States Navy SEAL, I am proud 
of all that you have done for our community, for the United States 
Navy, and our grateful Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Rear Admiral Brian Losey, the 
current Commander of Naval Special Warfare Command, our Nation's top 
U.S. Navy SEAL, entrusted with the honor of Commanding all Navy SEALs. 
I had the privilege of serving with Brian in the SEALs and am proud to 
call him a team mate.
  It is the obligation of every officer to take action when they see 
wrong, Admiral Losey did just that. He saw a problem and took action. 
Yet once again, our entrenched bureaucracy has allowed senior civilian 
individuals to hide behind anonymous accusations and whistle blower 
protections, in an attempt to discredit a great man and cover-up their 
transgressions.
  While these protections are important and necessary, they cannot be 
allowed to be abused or shield them from being held accountable.
  In this case, after the Navy reviewed the investigation of Admiral 
Losey, they found him to be innocent and wrongfully accused. I have 
seen the evidence. I fully support the U.S. Navy's conclusion and 
believe they properly reviewed the case and fairly adjudicated this 
matter.
  Admiral Losey is highly regarded by his subordinates and all of the 
special warfare community as a true selfless and humble leader. This 
includes the Navy SEAL standing before you that has had the honor to 
serve with him and know him for the last 30 years. He has sacrificially 
served our nation with distinction and honor.
  Let me just give you a snap shot of Admiral Losey's leadership under 
his command Naval Special Warfare Forces have:
  Executed 654 total missions.
  Killed 461 High Value Individuals.
  Captured 60, Wounded 32.
  Rescued an American Hostage.
  Deployed an average number of 250 days.
  NSW strives to maintain a 1:3 deploy-to-dwell ratio.
  In 2015 Iraq alone, NSW was responsible for the coordinated capture/
kill of over 3,000 enemy combatants.
  Participated in Operation Inherent Resolve, Operation Enduring 
Freedom (AFG/PI/H0A/TransSahara).
  Deployed to 30 countries as Crisis Response Forces.
  Deployed to 70 countries to support 550 training events for allied 
and partner nations, advancing partner forces' security capabilities,

[[Page 5973]]

ultimately training approximately 6,000 foreign partner and allied 
military personnel per year.
  American men, women, and children, both at home and abroad, are able 
to sleep soundly in their beds due to the leadership of Admiral Losey 
and the actions of the men and women he leads.
  Admiral Brian Losey thank you for your dedicated and faithful service 
to the United States of America. As a former teammate and U.S. Navy 
SEAL, I am proud of all that you have done for the NSW community, the 
United States Navy, and our great nation.
  The following in a more in depth background of the situation:
  There has been significant public media interest in the Whistleblower 
Reprisal Investigations against Rear Admiral Brian Losey, currently 
serving as Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command while serving as 
Commander, Special Operations Command Africa. My professional interest 
in these issues as a member of House Armed Services Committee, and as a 
former member of the Naval Special Warfare Community, was drawn by the 
apparent divergence in reporting put forth by the DoD Inspector 
General, and the adjudication conclusions of the Navy--and further 
highlighted by a divergent Senate address by Senator Chuck Grassley and 
a pointed op-ed by the former Commander, U.S. Special Operations 
Command Admiral (ret) Bill McRaven, which raised concerns about the 
unjust and destructive politicization of the matter. I looked into 
these cases and identified the following significant, and not all-
inclusive, items of concern from the evidence submitted to the DoD 
Inspector General:
  Rear Admiral Losey relieved an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel of his 
duties as Director of Personnel and Administration (J1 Director). This 
officer was responsible for the processing of awards and evaluations 
for service members assigned or conducting duties in support of Special 
Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA), and was delinquent in the 
processing of over 300 awards and evaluations spanning a timeframe 
greater than two years.
  Rear Admiral Losey and the Deputy Commander of SOCAFRICA counseled 
this officer well before any IG complaints were raised. By word and 
deed, this officer signaled that he was unwilling to step up his 
efforts to take care of service members, citing his family life as his 
primary concern, and arguing against establishing the normal 
administrative trackers for awards, evaluations, and pending transfers 
and gains in personnel as requested by Losey. After discovering that 
this officer allowed the use of Admiral Losey's legal signature via 
auto pen 36 times without the necessary authorization, and then not 
being truthful about it, Rear Admiral Losey relieved him and properly 
referred the placement of this officer to the Air Force chain of 
command.
  In the same timeframe, an Army Captain assigned to the J1 filed an 8 
page complaint against the J1 Director, citing a hostile work 
environment, lack of compliance with various administrative policies, 
and many of the same issues that SOCAFRICA leadership had already 
addressed in counseling with the J1 Director. An investigation was 
conducted by SOCAFRICA's higher headquarters, U.S. Africa Command, 
which determined that the J1 Director was culpably negligent and 
derelict in the execution of his duties on multiple counts. The 
investigation noted that the Senior NCO in the J1 among others, had 
reflected this officer ``was seldom in the workplace for 40 hours a 
week.'' The AFRICOM Judge Advocate Office endorsed the investigation 
and an Air Force Major General at AFRICOM issued a Letter of Counseling 
to the SOCAFRICA J1 Director citing ``a lack of; professionalism, 
selfless service, self-discipline and duty'' and further recommending 
that this officer ``approach future situations with the integrity and 
professionalism expected of an Air Force officer''.
  The AFRICOM investigation further recommended that this officer be 
issued an adverse fitness report. Admiral Losey did not issue an 
adverse fitness report and instead, recommended this officer for all 
for promotion requirements and promotion. It is apparent that Admiral 
Losey exercised considerable restraint and care in handling this 
officer.
  The written and verbal testimony as well as the substantial 
supporting documentation submitted to DoD IG by Rear Admiral Losey, the 
Deputy Commander, and the Chief of Staff reflects good faith and 
effective efforts to resolve both performance and misconduct issues 
related to the former Chief of Staff and the most senior civilian 
assigned to SOCAFRICA--publicly identified as Mr. Fred Jones through 
multiple media statements he has made related to these cases.
  Mr. Jones was provided a written counseling document for necessary 
performance improvement owing to a lack of staff processes, which he 
was responsible for developing and implementing over the four years he 
was the Chief of Staff, as well as deficiencies in staff organization 
and execution of his assigned duties. In addressing the increasing 
workload and levels of risk brought to SOCAFRICA service members 
deploying to Africa in the shadow of the Arab Spring and exacerbated by 
longer term and growing Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, and Boko Haram terrorism 
concerns, Mr. Jones agreed amicably in writing to the creation of a 
Director of Staff position to help level the workload not being 
addressed in his role as Chief of Staff. This parallels the common 
Deputy Commanding General for Operations and Deputy Commanding General 
for Support structure in Army Divisions. Rear Admiral Losey, with the 
diligent work of the staff was able to create a GS-15 position for Mr. 
Jones with no decrement to pays, benefits or stature. The new Chief of 
Staff, an Army Colonel, offered Mr. Jones workspace in the Chief of 
Staff office. Mr. Jones had a couple of other choices and selected an 
office co-located with a longtime friend, remote from the command 
group.
  Shortly after the new Chief of Staff assumed his duties, he gained 
access to the SOCAFRICA pay report. He noted and confirmed significant 
irregularities in pay benefits drawn by several SOCAFRICA civilian 
members with AFRICOM, who issued the report. A formal, command-wide, 
and broad scoped investigation was initiated and spanned a timeframe of 
one and a half years prior to Rear Admiral Losey's arrival to 
approximately one and a half years after his arrival. The investigation 
of over 1,000 pay record entries revealed that Mr. Jones, along with 3 
other civilians identified in allegations against Losey, comprised 92% 
of the major pay violations in SOCAFRICA in that three year period. 
This was particularly egregious as Mr. Jones, a retired Army Reserve 
Special Forces Colonel, was accountable for maintaining the integrity 
and compliance of the pay system, and was the single largest violator 
of DoD Financial Management Regulations and policies in SOCAFRICA by 
routinely seeking pay and leave benefit approvals from his 
subordinates. This investigation and a subsequent AFRICOM IG inspection 
further revealed that several civilians in SOCAFRICA held unauthorized 
super user/system administrator privileges in the pay system and were 
circumventing the normal benefit approval and verification processes. 
Rear Admiral Losey directed Mr. Jones to personally comply with proper 
procedures--but Mr. Jones disregarded this direction and continued to 
seek approvals of pay benefits through his subordinates. The 
whistleblower complaints against Rear Admiral Losey were raised AFTER 
the pay investigations were initiated and Mr. Jones implicated in 
misconduct. To not investigate this misconduct given the data presented 
would have been a dereliction of duty by Rear Admiral Losey.
  This misconduct was further amplified when the new Chief of Staff 
went to work with staff experts to include Mr. Jones, in creating an 
apparently absent pay policy within SOCAFRICA. Weeks into this work, 
the new Chief of Staff discovered that a policy had already been 
created years earlier under the hand of Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones did not 
disclose that there was already a policy in effect that was not being 
complied with.
  After designation as Director of Staff, Mr. Jones was properly 
detailed in accordance with his job description and duties to complete 
the body of instructions and policies that should have been in place 
for a command that was 4 years old. With persistent management 
oversight, he satisfactorily completed his tasks months after the 
agreed to suspense date, and was rated as ``successful'' in his 
performance evaluation. This evaluation was fully supported by civilian 
personnel policy, was not a ``lowering'' of his ratings, as this was 
Rear Admiral Losey's first report on Mr. Jones. This rating did not 
require any Performance Improvement Plan as incorrectly asserted by DoD 
IG, and is required only for evaluations reflecting ``failure''. It 
appears that Losey did not reprise in addressing these issues. It 
appears that the responsible management officials (RMOS) as a whole, 
took considerable care in ensuring Mr. Jones' pay and stature in the 
creation of a GS-15 Director of Staff position were not decremented or 
compromised.
  In another disturbing demonstration of a lack of process, internal 
management, and compliance, SOCAFRICA's executive oversight agency for 
communications security (COMSEC) and specifically, the handling of 
sensitive cryptographic keying material noted a pervasive lack of 
compliance in SOCAFRICA's COMSEC program during a staff assist visit. 
Discrepancies in COMSEC are a national security concern, and reportable 
at all times. Their discovery during the assist visit threatened to 
shut down SOCAFRICA's communications, and the numerous operations

[[Page 5974]]

they supported. Rear Admiral Losey learned that his COMSEC vault and 
COMSEC managers were not certified, and that there were a significant 
number of cryptographic keys in Africa that had not been documented as 
properly destroyed. The was perplexing as Rear Admiral Losey recalled 
the receipt of commendatory correspondence from USSOCOM for an 
excellent internal management control program only a couple of months 
before his arrival at SOCAFRICA. This program is designed to apply 
additional oversight on sensitive or high impact functions of a 
command, to include COMSEC. Given that the program was commendable on 
one hand, and failing on another, an investigation was initiated. The 
investigation revealed that the COMSEC oversight portion of the 
internal management program was falsified with backdated compliance 
checklists, and an unsupported statement of compliance. Staff 
processes, staff function and compliance, fell squarely in Mr. Jones 
job responsibilities. Again, Rear Admiral Losey handled the correction 
of this issue administratively at the lowest level possible. By all 
evidence reviewed, it appears that Rear Admiral Losey did his best to 
ensure that SOCAFRICA was able to provide critical support to service 
members deploying into complex security situations and at risk, while 
preserving Mr. Jones equities as a civil servant. These areas included 
Somalia and boundary states, South Sudan, Libya, Uganda and countries 
impacted by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and Joseph Kony, as well 
as a dozen more countries in the Trans-Sahara and Islamic Maghreb 
regions--areas where Al Qaeda and Boko Haram were spreading.
  Civilian A, a named party in the allegations against Rear Admiral 
Losey, served as the SOCAFRICA Executive Officer (XO), and was a 
retired Army Major. He was subordinate to and rated by, Mr. Jones. He 
was the primary unauthorized approval authority for Mr. Jones' pay 
benefits as revealed in the broadly scoped, command wide investigation 
into the matter.
  As XO, Civilian A was properly detailed in accordance with his job 
description and duties to assist Mr. Jones in completing the body of 
instructions and policies necessary to define and formalize SOCAFRICA's 
staff processes and functions. Along with Mr. Jones, Civilian A 
satisfactorily completed this task with persistent management oversight 
months after the agreed suspense date. In accordance with personnel 
policy, he was given ``successful'' evaluation marks in a report 
rendered by Losey. This was Losey's first report on the member, and was 
not a ``lowering''. As with Mr. Jones, a performance improvement plan 
was not required, and is triggered when a member is assessed to be 
``failing''. As reflected in evidence submitted to DoD IG by RMOS, 
Civilian A had repeated clashes with senior management officials, and 
was constant in his efforts to assert alternative realities of 
discussions and agreements. He was particularly resistant to direction 
to removing his liquor displays from the government workplace.
  At the request of Civilian A, and as agreed to at the outset of the 
detail period, Civilian A was moved to the SOCAFRICA Directorate for 
Plans (J5) upon completion of his work detail with Mr. Jones. As there 
was no civil servant position available for him in the J5, Rear Admiral 
Losey and management officials ensured his placement by creating a GS-
13 non-compete billet in the J5 to support and ensure Civilian A's 
professional placement and development desires. DoD IG instructions 
require that investigators assess the motives and character of 
witnesses. In the case of Civilian A and Mr. Jones, it is apparent that 
the whistleblower complaint against Rear Admiral Losey was likely not 
triggered by the distant allegation of a travel infraction, but more 
proximately triggered as a shield to the long standing misconduct 
associated with padding their compensatory time and overtime pay 
benefits, and circumventing the very processes they were accountable 
for instituting and enforcing in SOCAFRICA. DoD IG questioned Losey on 
a ``locker room'' discussion from which nearly every quote that is 
attributed to Losey and his alleged reprisal motives emanate. After 
misrepresenting Rear Admiral Losey's transcribed testimony in 
preliminary reports, and after separate questionings a year apart, DoD 
IG concluded that they could not substantiate that any ``locker room'' 
discussion occurred--this was revealed finally as an allegation made by 
Civilian A as a ``one on one'' conversation. It is a significant 
concern, but likely an simple administrative oversight to see the 
elements of a conversation that could not be substantiated cascaded 
through every DoD IG investigative report as though they actually 
occurred. It is equally concerning that DoD IG enables these 
complainants seeking the title of ``whistleblower'' to exercise a 
seemingly unlimited dominion over truth and forthright character. 
Civilian A, as an Army Officer and Battalion XO, ordered a cover up in 
advance of a CID investigation into a drowning death of an Iraqi 
citizen. He later testified on the matter in exchange for immunity from 
prosecution, while soldiers from the Battalion that followed his orders 
were tried in court. Civilian A's character is well chronicled in the 
book ``Drowning in the Desert'' by V.H. Gambera. He was ultimately 
censured by the Chief Staff of the Army for obstruction of justice. 
These motive and character assessments are clearly relevant.
  I reviewed the separate investigation into Rear Admiral Losey's 
leadership, as referenced by Admiral (ret) McCraven. Rear Admiral 
Losey's effectiveness as well the respect he generates in mission 
execution is well documented. Additionally I note that he has exceeded 
DoD and Navy averages for every command climate assessment area based 
on DEOMI Survey records.
  I commend the Navy for its careful and forthright review of relevant 
evidence in this matter. Mission execution and ensuring proper support 
of service members in harm's way while bringing SOCAFRICA's processes 
and compliance to acceptable levels were evident drivers in RMO and 
Rear Admiral Losey's actions, and clearly supports the Navy's 
adjudication conclusions.
  I am deeply concerned that three and a half years of investigating, 
over 100 witness interviews, and 300,000 e-mails were digested to 
produce biased reports at the near complete exclusion or distortion of 
the testimony, evidence, and documentation that provided credible 
support and justification for the actions of RMO's and for a 
commander's duty obligations and responsibilities. I am equally 
concerned at the disregard for timeliness in the execution of these 
investigations, and note there is still a ``phantom investigation'' 
open for over a thousand days? There are also legitimate concerns with 
DoD IG's handling of sensitive case material and its' release to the 
media. There is something seriously amiss at DoD IG.
  Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague Senator Grassley--
there needs to be an independent, in depth investigation into the 
Deputy IC for Administrative Investigations, Marguerite Garrison. I 
have substantial misgivings in the integrity, investigative practices, 
timeliness, and compliance under her leadership in this matter based on 
my review.

                [From the Tampa Tribune, Apr. 24, 2016]

                        (By William H. McRaven)

       When I was a young boy my father, a veteran of World War II 
     and Korea, schooled me on the downfall of Gen. Douglas 
     MacArthur. MacArthur, he explained, had overstepped his 
     authority and shown blatant disrespect for the civilian 
     leadership of the country. President Harry Truman relieved 
     him of his command, and MacArthur retired soon thereafter.
       Civilian rule of the military was one of the most 
     fundamental principles of the armed forces. To believe 
     differently was dangerous, my father told me. Dad strongly 
     supported Truman's action, and he made me understand the 
     value of the civil-military relationship--a lesson I never 
     forgot.
       But over the past decade I have seen a disturbing trend in 
     how politicians abuse and denigrate military leadership, 
     particularly the officer corps, to advance their political 
     agendas. Although this is certainly not a new phenomenon, it 
     seems to be growing in intensity. My concern is that if this 
     trend of disrespect to the military continues it will 
     undermine the strength of the officer corps to the point 
     where good men and women will forgo service--or worse the 
     ones serving will be reluctant to make hard decision for fear 
     their actions, however justified, will be used against them 
     in the political arena.
       Take the recent case of Rear Adm. Brian Losey.
       Adm. Losey is the commander of all Naval Special Warfare 
     forces--the SEALs and Special Boat sailors. I have known 
     Losey for more than 30 years. He is without a doubt one of 
     the finest officers with whom I have ever served. Over the 
     past 15 years no officer I know in the SEAL Teams has given 
     more to this country than Brian. None. As a young officer he 
     was constantly deployed away from his family. After 9/11, he 
     was sent to Afghanistan in the early days to help fight the 
     Taliban. From there, Losey participated in the final march to 
     Baghdad and then stayed in country as a SEAL Task Unit 
     Commander. Afterward he served as the deputy and then the 
     commanding officer of SEAL Team Six during more tough 
     fighting in Afghanistan.
       Later he was posted to the White House in the Office of 
     Combating Terrorism. He made rear admiral in 2009 while at 
     the White House. He was subsequently sent back overseas to 
     Djibouti, Africa, to do a 15-month isolated tour as the 
     commander of all U.S. forces in the Horn of Africa. As a 
     result of that successful tour, he was given command of 
     Special Operations Command, Africa (SOCAFRICA).
       SOCAFRICA was a relatively new command, which had been 
     established to address

[[Page 5975]]

     the growing threat in North Africa. Located in the beautiful 
     Swabian city of Stuttgart, Germany, it was initially staffed 
     with military and civilian personnel from another nearby 
     special operations unit. Although most of the men and women 
     were incredibly capable, hard-working staffers, there was a 
     small core who had been living in Europe for years enjoying 
     the comfortable lifestyle in Stuttgart.
       Upon Losey's arrival in Germany, the situation in North 
     Africa changed dramatically, and the fledgling SOCAFRICA had 
     to quickly get on wartime footing. Brian Losey did just that.
       Losey is a no-nonsense officer who knows what it takes to 
     get results. Combat is hard. Lives are at stake. Being 
     genteel and considerate of everyone's feelings are not the 
     qualities that will engender success. But although Losey can 
     be a tough taskmaster, he is a ``by-the-book'' officer. 
     Unfortunately for Losey, along the way to strengthening the 
     command there were those who fought the change and through a 
     series of whistleblower complaints sought to seek his 
     removal.
       At the time, I was the commander of the U.S. Special 
     Operations Command in Tampa. I worked with Gen. Carter Ham, 
     who commanded U.S. Africa Command and had operational control 
     of Adm. Losey, to investigate the complaints.
       The investigation we initiated determined that Losey's 
     leadership style, while brusque and demanding, did not 
     warrant his removal. The Navy subsequently recommended Losey 
     for two stars, and he was confirmed by the Senate in December 
     2011.
       Although the Navy inspector general absolved Losey of any 
     wrongdoing, his promotion was put on hold pending DOD 
     inspector general resolution of the complaints. Nevertheless, 
     the secretary of the Navy agreed to reassign Adm. Losey to 
     the premier job in Naval Special Warfare--command of all the 
     SEALs.
       During the past three years as commander of Naval Special 
     Warfare Command (WARCOM), his staff has consistently ranked 
     WARCOM to be one of the best places to work in the Navy. He 
     has passed all Navy IG inspections with flying colors, and 
     the retention statics for his young officers and enlisted is 
     exceptional.
       However, in the course of those three years, the 
     whistleblowers from Stuttgart continued to pursue Losey's 
     removal and resignation, routinely submitting new complaints 
     to prolong the process and hold up his promotion.
       A series of DOD inspector general investigations were 
     reviewed by the Navy leadership and, once again, Adm. Losey 
     was found not to have violated any law, rule or policy. In 
     fact, it was clear to the Navy that the personnel action 
     taken by Losey against the complainants was not reprisal. He 
     was recommended again for promotion to two stars.
       Despite the Navy's multiple endorsements, certain members 
     of Congress chose to use Losey's case to pursue their own 
     political agenda. They held hostage other Navy nominations 
     until Losey's promotion recommendation was rescinded. The 
     ransom for their congressional support was Brian Losey's 
     career and, more importantly, his stellar reputation.

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, folks wonder sometimes what kind of men 
and women serve in this Chamber. And when I am asked, What did you 
learn new, Rob, that you didn't expect when you got to Congress, I talk 
about the caliber of the men and women who serve here.
  If you have not had any time to spend with the gentleman from 
Montana, the former commander at Navy SEAL Team 6 spent 20 years 
serving his country in the SEALs and said: I have more leadership to 
provide. I want to run for Congress because I want to be able to make a 
difference in that way.
  And he is making that difference here every day.
  Madam Speaker, there is so much time where we spend tearing each 
other down and talking about all the problems that exist in Washington, 
and certainly, they are multiple. But to confront serious problems, you 
have to have serious people; and we do have serious people in this 
Chamber. Congressman Zinke is one of those, and I am proud to serve 
with him, and I appreciate his leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I want to talk about another topic that I think lets 
people--again, we can talk about all the challenges that exist in this 
country, but figuring out what the problem is and who to blame for it 
should not be our primary goal. Our primary goal should be solving 
those problems.
  Madam Speaker, I want to talk about unleashing America's economic 
potential, and I want to talk about the FairTax. You know about the 
FairTax. The FairTax is not two words, as you know. FairTax is one 
word.
  FairTax is the name of a bill in Congress. Not many bills in Congress 
command the notoriety that FairTax does, but it is H.R. 25. Anybody can 
pull it from congress.gov and read it. It is short, about 100 pages.
  But it says, for Pete's sake, Madam Speaker, if we are going to try 
to make America competitive in the world, if we are going to try to 
create American jobs, if we are going to try to make America the 
country that you follow, if we are going to make America that leader in 
the world, what are we going to do it on?
  Madam Speaker, if you want to create more jobs in America, you could 
depress salaries. We could pay everybody pennies, as some nations do, 
and try to create more jobs. That is an awful plan. That is not the 
right way.
  If we wanted to create more jobs in America, we could stop caring 
about clean water and clean air and just throw our environment out with 
the job creation. But that is not what we want to do. That is a 
terrible idea.
  Madam Speaker, as we sit here today, one thing that all the men and 
women in this Chamber control is the United States Tax Code. And the 
United States Tax Code, time and time again, is rated as the single 
worst Tax Code on the planet, the single worst Tax Code on the planet.
  Once a week, you can open up a newspaper, find a story of a company 
leaving America to pursue incorporation outside of America's borders so 
that they can face a lower tax rate. And folks say: Oh, how 
unpatriotic; what an awful thing to do.
  Madam Speaker, I would tell you that the law of the land requires 
them to do that. The law of the land says if you are the board of 
directors of a publicly traded corporation, you have a fiduciary duty 
to maximize return to shareholders. If you are trying to incorporate in 
a company that is punishing you, and you can go to a country that 
rewards you, you must make that. It is not optional. It is required.
  So we can either try to pass laws that trap companies here, or we can 
try to pass laws that encourage every Nation on the planet to locate 
here. The FairTax does exactly that.
  Madam Speaker, let me tell you a little bit about what the FairTax 
does. It is a fair chance for every American family to build a better 
life.
  We talk so much about the income tax in this Chamber, but the truth 
is that 80 percent of American families pay more in payroll taxes than 
they do in income taxes.
  All the time we spend complaining about the IRS, complaining about 
the American Tax Code, the Income Tax Code, it is the payroll tax that 
is the largest tax burden that 80 percent of American families face.
  If you are a millionaire, a billionaire, if you are running your own 
giant, megacorporation, you can accept your salary any way you want to. 
You can do it from capital gains, stock options. You can have your 
privately held company pay you dividends. You have your choice about 
how you receive your income and, depending on what the Tax Code 
punishes and encourages, you can manipulate your income accordingly.
  Madam Speaker, but if you are the rank-and-file American middle class 
family, you don't have a choice. You don't have capital gains or 
dividends or stock options to choose from. You get a paycheck, and out 
of that paycheck, the government takes the first dollar, and it is 15.3 
percent that the government takes in payroll taxes alone.

                              {time}  1230

  Now, Madam Speaker, payroll taxes are a valuable tool in this 
country. They fund the Medicare program, and they fund the Social 
Security program. These are two very important programs to America, but 
they are both threatened. The revenue stream for those two programs is 
insufficient to fund the demands on those programs. We have to find a 
better way.
  The FairTax says: don't take the money out of an individual's 
paycheck. The power to tax is the power to destroy. When you tax 
productivity, you destroy productivity. Rather than taxing income, 
let's tax consumption.
  We all wondered on April 15, Madam Speaker, what our neighbors paid 
in income taxes. Don't you wonder? Money

[[Page 5976]]

magazine did a study one time. Fifteen different accountants worked on 
the same tax return, and they came up with 15 different answers. It was 
impossible to figure out which one was right, and none of those was the 
answer that Money magazine came up with for themselves. But you wonder 
what you are neighbor is paying, and you wonder if they are paying 
their fair share.
  What the FairTax says is we are going to charge you not based on what 
you produce but what you consume.
  So if you have a brand-new Mercedes sitting in your driveway, we 
think you ought to be able to help fund the American way of life. If 
you have a used Ford Festiva sitting in your driveway, maybe we ought 
to cut you some slack.
  If you have just built yourself a new, 9-bedroom, 12-bathroom house, 
we think you ought to be able to afford to pay to help grow America. If 
you are a family of six living in a two-bedroom apartment, we think we 
ought to cut you some slack.
  If you are working hard trying to improve your life, don't punish 
productivity, as today's Tax Code does; tax folks based on consumption. 
That is not a crazy idea, Madam Speaker. In fact, America is one of the 
only OECD countries, one of the only industrialized countries that 
doesn't have a consumption tax.
  But America was founded on a consumption tax. That is exactly the way 
America began, saying that if you have enough money to import silver 
from Europe you ought to be able to pay the tax on that. It was excise 
taxes at that time. I am talking about a simple retail sales tax.
  But people spend at different rates, Madam Speaker. People spend at 
different rates. What I have here--you can't see it; the print is going 
to be too small--but it is the relative tax rates of a two-adult, two-
child household.
  What the FairTax says is, listen, we all have basic expenses in our 
lives. If you are struggling and you are trying to make a better life 
for you and your family, you are going to have to buy your food, you 
are going to have to have an apartment, you are going to have some form 
of transportation, whether it is a car or riding public transportation, 
and you are going to have to have clothing. These are the basic 
necessities of life.
  So we have created a system so that no American family pays retail 
sales taxes on those basic necessities. That is what we will call 
poverty-level spending. When you go above and beyond that, you begin to 
pay the taxes.
  What that means, Madam Speaker, is that if you are earning $32,000 a 
year in that family of four, you are not paying a penny in taxes. 
Again, payroll tax is today the largest tax that American families pay. 
We are not asking you to pay a penny.
  But if you are earning $50,000 a year, then you start to pay an 
effective rate of about 7\1/2\ percent. If you are earning $64,000, 
then it is about 11 percent, and on and on and on until you get all the 
way up to a 23-percent tax.
  There are no exceptions, no deductions, and no exemptions. Everybody 
pays on everything after that poverty-level spending.
  Again, Madam Speaker, if you can afford to have a boat and a new jet 
ski sitting in your driveway, then I think you can afford to help 
struggling families in America succeed. If you are one of those 
struggling families and you are saving every penny that you have 
because you want to send your child to college one day, then we ought 
to cut you some slack.
  Madam Speaker, the FairTax was created by a group of economists, a 
group of public citizen activists, who said: If we started from scratch 
today, then what Tax Code would we write?
  There is not a man or a woman in Congress, Madam Speaker, who 
believes that if we wrote a Tax Code today that we would write the one 
we have. The one we have is atrocious. It is atrocious.
  What that does is it targets every individual working at the IRS. The 
IRS is the most vilified institution in this town. By moving the burden 
of taxation from income to consumption, the FairTax would close the IRS 
forever.
  Madam Speaker, the problem with the IRS could be the occasional rogue 
man or woman that works there, but most of the men and women that work 
there are conscientious and hardworking civil servants charged with 
implementing the atrocious Tax Code that this Congress has passed.
  Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, said: The best 
way to escape this trap that we are in is to throw the whole thing out 
and start over from scratch. He is exactly right.
  Madam Speaker, #PassTheFairTax is the way we are driving this 
particular debate. Imagine if working American families never, ever, 
ever had to deal with the IRS again. If you are a sophisticated 
business, you are going to collect that tax in sales taxes. You are 
going to have to deal with a State tax collector, and you are going to 
have to deal with an occasional Federal audit. But if you are a rank-
and-file American family, you will never be threatened by the IRS 
again.
  Madam Speaker, you know, as I do, we handle casework all the time 
from constituents being pushed around by the IRS, getting threatening 
letters from the IRS and having their home threatened by the IRS. Why? 
Because, despite their very best efforts, they messed up their tax 
return.
  Money magazine hired 15 professional accounting groups to fill out a 
tax return. They all got different answers. But when an American family 
makes that same mistake, they are punished.
  I want to close the IRS for good, Madam Speaker. I want to get folks 
out of the business of being threatened by their government. I don't 
think folks mind paying their fair share, but they would like a thank-
you for paying their fair share, not a threatening letter from the IRS 
at the end of the day.
  What are we talking about in terms of productivity, Madam Speaker? 
The Tax Code grows longer and longer and longer every year. The 
National Taxpayers Union this year, by this April 15, said that in this 
1 year alone we spent 6.1 billion--billion--hours filling out tax 
returns, that we spent collectively $330 billion to comply--$330 
billion to comply.
  Madam Speaker, what would have happened to the economy if we had 
dedicated that $330 billion to economically productive activities? We 
could have dedicated that $330 billion to paying down the debt.
  It is not just the $330 billion that we lose because we are spending 
it on taxes. Our Tax Code is so convoluted. The New York Times reported 
last month that $458 billion, almost one-half-trillion, go uncollected 
every year, sometimes through fraud, sometimes through deceit, and 
oftentimes just through an inability to understand the Tax Code and 
folks not reporting it properly. Collectively, we are talking about $1 
trillion in lost productivity here in this country.
  There are 11 million words of laws and regulations in the Tax Code. 
Madam Speaker, you know that you haven't read it. I haven't read it 
either. We are paying people to help us with our taxes; they haven't 
read it either. You call the IRS Help Line for help; they haven't read 
it either. Eleven million words, nobody has read it, and nobody 
understands it. We make a criminal out of every family in this Nation 
when we ask them to comply with it.
  Madam Speaker, sadly, particularly over the last 2 years, we have 
been reading about abuses at the IRS, whether it is targeting groups 
based on what their conservative beliefs are, whether it is 
inappropriately leaking confidential information, selectively leaking 
that information to support one effort or another.
  Madam Speaker, the IRS knows more about each and every one of us than 
many of us are willing to tell our children, and it is wrong. You 
cannot give that kind of power to an agency without having agency 
abuses.
  We can close the IRS. We can get every American family out of the 
business of dealing with the IRS on April 15 by simply paying a retail 
sales tax when they shop at their local stores.
  Madam Speaker, we are talking about igniting America's economy. We 
are talking about doing those things that encourage productivity, doing 
those things that encourage risk-taking, and doing those things on 
which America's economy was founded but many of which we have lost 
sight of in the past several years.

[[Page 5977]]

  We can't avoid paying taxes. Death and taxes are certain. What we can 
do is make it easier, what we can do is make it more effective, and 
what we can do is make it less punishing.
  We are having a debate right now, Madam Speaker, about what kind of 
new Tax Code to provide for America. I believe we are going to get 
there. I don't think we are going to get there this year. I think it is 
going to require some Presidential leadership. I think all the 
Presidential candidates remaining are talking about what they would do 
to change the Tax Code.
  We all realize we are getting shellacked by the rest of the globe. 
All of our major trading partners are bringing their corporate rates 
down and down and down, creating the kind of corporate flight that we 
are talking about.
  I don't want to talk about changing America's Tax Code so it fits in 
kind of the middle of the pack, so that we are kind of average with all 
of our peers around the globe. I would tell you, America has no peers 
around the globe. America is a leader around the globe. America stands 
alone around the globe, and America should lead the world with the 
single best Tax Code around the globe.
  I don't want to lower wages, I don't want to impact environmental 
regulations, and I don't want to change those things that deliver 
value. I want to change those things that don't. And a complicated Tax 
Code benefits no one except lobbyists in Washington, D.C.
  Madam Speaker, Americans for Fair Taxation, again, hired some of the 
best economists we have in the land, who predicted that we could create 
13 million more jobs--13 million more jobs--with a Tax Code that 
encouraged investment, that encouraged savings, and that got us out of 
the business of punishing productivity and into the business of 
rewarding.
  Michael Boskin, the former chairman of the Council of Economic 
Advisers, Madam Speaker, said that the long-term gain to GDP from a 
consumption-based tax reform would be roughly 10 percent--a 10-percent 
change to GDP simply because we take away a punitive Tax Code and put 
in one that makes sense.
  Madam Speaker, I don't know about families in your district; families 
in my district can't wait. Families in my district don't think the 
economy is going so great that it is okay if we shave off 10 percent at 
the top. We can do better and we must.
  ``Long-run GDP per capita would be 9.7-percent higher under a 
national sales tax,'' says Alan Auerbach at the University of 
California, Berkeley.
  Time and time again, economists from the left and economists from the 
right come to the same conclusion: the power to tax is the power to 
destroy. Taxing income punishes and destroys productivity.
  ``Near-term 9- to 13-percent increase in the GDP,'' says Dale 
Jorgenson, the former chairman of the economics department at Harvard 
University.
  There is a reason all of these different economists come together 
around the same figure, Madam Speaker, again, from the left and from 
the right. We have an opportunity to do better, if only we will agree.
  Madam Speaker, it is #PassTheFairTax. The FairTax has more 
cosponsors--again, it is H.R. 25--more cosponsors than any other 
fundamental tax reform in this institution. On the Senate side, it has 
more cosponsors than any other fundamental tax reform bill on the 
Senate side.
  Madam Speaker, the FairTax has supporters in every State across the 
Nation. It is not coming out of Washington, D.C.
  Passing the FairTax would take away so much of the power that this 
town can exercise over people. We will give you a tax credit for buying 
an electric car, we will give you a tax credit for buying a windmill, 
we will give you a tax credit for having more children, and we will 
give you a tax credit for this, that, and the other. With the FairTax, 
all of those exceptions and exemptions go away. Hear that.
  I started telling you about the amazing men and women who serve in 
this Chamber, folks who come to work every day to try to build a better 
America in cooperation with their bosses, their constituents back home.
  We talk so often about how the Washington culture creates all these 
exceptions and exemptions and somebody is benefiting from it and 
somebody is getting paid off for it. Nonsense.
  There is one bill in this Chamber that abolishes every single 
special-interest exception, exemption, carveout, and credit in the 
entire United States Tax Code. That bill is the FairTax, and that bill 
has more support in this Chamber than any other fundamental tax reform 
bill in Congress.
  Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to do this together. We have an 
opportunity to build a better economy together. We have an opportunity 
to take the IRS out of every single one of our constituents' lives 
forever.
  It is going to take a lot of courage. It is going to take a lot of 
courage to abolish all of those exceptions and exemptions. It is going 
to take a lot of courage to hit the reset clock on the American Tax 
Code. It is going to take a lot of courage to get out of the business 
of trying to be mediocre with the rest of the world and kind of settle 
right there in the middle and to move from the very worst Tax Code on 
the planet to the very best Tax Code on the planet.
  Worst to first, Madam Speaker. That is what the FairTax offers. I ask 
the support from each and every one of my colleagues that has not yet 
cosponsored this bill.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________