[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 75 (Monday, May 19, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H4469-H4473]
CLANDESTINE INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
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, tonight I wanted to discuss issues
regarding the PATRIOT Act. As I understand it, we will be taking up a
vote, come Thursday, on what is called the USA FREEDOM Act, I believe.
I know that there was a lot of work put into negotiating a compromise
there, but I still have a concern, as I did when I was a freshman, with
the language in the PATRIOT Act.
This is language here from the PATRIOT Act, 50 U.S.C., section 1861,
that allows the Federal Government to go into very personal matters and
very personal documentation of individuals. Some of us felt like it was
allowing the Federal Government to get more than the Federal Government
should be entitled to get. There is similar language in the FISA Act.
But this language says that the Director of the FBI or a designee of
the Director may make an application for an order requiring the
production of tangible things, including books, records, papers,
documents, and other
[[Page H4470]]
items for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information
not concerning a United States person or to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
And there was a provision put in there that says such investigation
of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of
activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
And back when I was a freshman and this language was being discussed
back in '05, '06, during that time frame, I pointed out that it seems
like throughout the PATRIOT Act they keep referring to
``international,'' ``foreign,'' as this does, foreign intelligence
information, international terrorism, other language with similar
references. So I thought, well, that is strange, though, that when it
mentions clandestine intelligence activities, that is a vague enough
term, it doesn't include the words ``foreign,'' ``international.'' So I
was quite concerned about that. And the Bush administration
representatives made clear: Look, Congressman, ``foreign,''
``international,'' that is all the way through this stuff. You don't
have to worry about it. It has to do with foreign contacts.
So if there is no foreign contact, then the PATRIOT Act doesn't apply
because that is throughout the act. It has got to be foreign. It has
got to have an international element to it. And so much so that I
encouraged my colleagues that were concerned about their own phone logs
being gathered that, if they simply avoided using their phone or had
foreign terrorists call another number and not their own phone, they
ought to be okay, being a bit sarcastic.
Well, it turns out that my concerns about the use of the terms
``clandestine intelligence activities'' were apparently spot-on, that
despite the assurances from the Gonzales Justice Department that, oh,
no, it has to be foreign, it has to be international, if there is not
that element in it, then it doesn't really comply. And I said: But it
doesn't say that with regard to clandestine intelligence activities.
I mean, clandestine. So somebody peeping over a wall to see what they
can see. I mean, technically, that could be considered clandestine,
gathering intelligence. Look up the word ``intelligence.'' It is pretty
all-encompassing, anything that gathers information.
So it wouldn't take much to get an order granting virtually any
information the Federal Government is seeking, even though there is no
contact with a Federal agent, Federal Government, a foreign entity of
any kind. It is not there, and it needs to be there.
{time} 2030
Unfortunately, when I raised this glaring hole, the people who
negotiated this bill, my friend, Jim Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, and
I think Bobby Scott, they were a bit defensive. Gee, we have our deal,
and so you can't--we can't allow an amendment even though it has got
very wide and bipartisan support. If one goes back and looks at how the
vote on my amendment went when it passed, it was very bipartisan. We
had some folks that would be considered very liberal Democrats along
with some of us who are considered very conservative. But the united
concern that allowed my amendment to pass was about having terms
``clandestine intelligence activities'' that would allow the Federal
Government basically to get an order to go snooping on fishing
expeditions based on very little, and certainly nothing to do with
terrorism. It opened the door to orders for information, even though
they had no link whatsoever of any kind or in any way to terrorism,
just if they want to do a fishing expedition.
Although we were assured by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales--a
great Texan and a smart man--he assured us the National Security
Letters were not being abused that allowed them to gather information,
that there were no abuses here in the PATRIOT Act. An IG inspector's
report indicated that there was widespread, massive abuse from Federal
agents who were simply on fishing expeditions, just gathering
information and gathering documents as they saw fit that had no link
and no tie to any type of foreign terrorism.
So I was hoping to get this fixed. It is a hole big enough in the
PATRIOT Act that a truck could be driven through it by Federal agents
coming to unload all kinds of private information that American
citizens may have, even though such American citizens have no ties with
terrorism, no ties with foreign agents, and no ties with foreign
governments. They left a gaping hole in what is being called a fix to
the PATRIOT Act abuses.
Unfortunately, though my amendment passed to remedy this problem,
though it passed in committee, a few amendments later, maybe one or two
amendments later, we had votes we had to come to the floor for, and I
had a conflict, and by the time I got back, they had already called a
re-vote on my amendment, and without requiring a recorded vote, it was
voice voted and the amendment was voted down.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that people in America will get the
message that this administration wants to protect its ability to get
information on any American, whether they have any ties to terrorism,
whether they have got any ties to foreign governments, any ties to
foreign agents, any ties to anything that might give some of us
concern--you don't have to have those.
If they can assert that you may be gathering clandestine
intelligence--intelligence meaning any information; you may call a
Federal office and ask for information--they may decide, gee, that is a
clandestine attempt to gather intelligence. Mr. Speaker, there used to
be an old joke that is not so funny anymore about the guy that called
the FBI office and said, here is my name, and I demand to know if you
have got a Federal FBI file on me, and the answer was: ``We do now.''
That used to be a joke. ``We didn't have one until now.'' And that used
to be cute. It is not so cute anymore because under the language that
so-called negotiators drafted, that massive hole that allows the
gathering of information on American citizens will remain in the bill,
and will remain part of the PATRIOT Act unless it is fixed.
I will have an amendment to this bill. The Rules Committee may or may
not allow it to come to the floor. If the Speaker doesn't want it to
come to the floor, it is not likely it will come to the floor. And if
that is the case, I will have to vote against this so-called fix to the
PATRIOT Act because it doesn't fix it. It just allows more cover for
the Federal Government, with a massive hole for anybody that wants to
gather information on anybody.
We need to fix it. We don't need to have an act that allows Federal
agents, whether it was the Bush administration, as they were doing,
whether it is the Obama administration, as they have been doing, or a
future administration--whether Republican or Democrat--we need to stop
fishing expeditions.
That should be bipartisan. It was bipartisan until the negotiators of
the so-called fix got very protective and decided they were not
accepting such an amendment that would close this gaping hole that
allows abuse by the Federal Government.
I hope it will be reconsidered, but unless there is a lot of push
from the public, Mr. Speaker, I doubt that they are going to be any
less protective of their negotiated work, and so it will allow this
administration to continue spying and getting information on American
citizens that I would contend is not appropriate at all.
That terminology is used a number of other places in the PATRIOT Act.
There is another place, 18 U.S.C., 1844, regarding pen registers, you
know, phone logs, trap-and-trace devices to allow the Federal
Government to trace calls and all, they use similar language. There, in
that part of federal law, it authorizes the Attorney General or
designated attorney for the government to get an order against anybody
who is attempting to obtain foreign intelligence information as long
as--it says this--it is not concerning a United States person, number
one, or number two, to protect against international terrorism, or
three, clandestine intelligence activities. And that is what I was
concerned about 9 years ago in my freshman term.
I said, wait a minute, clandestine intelligence activities, that
doesn't protect American citizens. Oh, but look up there in the part
before. It says, it has to be information not concerning a U.S. person.
I said, yeah, but then it has the disjunctive word ``or.'' Yeah,
[[Page H4471]]
but then in that next part it says, international terrorism, it has to
be international. No, but after that, it has another disjunctive
``or,'' so any one of these can apply, or it can be for clandestine
intelligence activities even if it is a United States person, even if
it is not involving international terrorism, or someone who has had
contact with a foreign agent.
In another part, it references a certification by the applicant.
Well, this is the exact wording:
There must be a certification by the applicant that the
information likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence
information not concerning a United States person, or is
relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against
international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence
activities.
Again, that third part, even in this statute, leaves that gaping
hole, ``clandestine intelligence activities.'' That is such a wide open
phrase. It is such a hole. It doesn't limit it to foreign agents. It
doesn't limit it to U.S. citizens who have contact with foreign
terrorists, foreign agents. It doesn't have to be part of some kind of
some international terrorism scheme. It allows Federal agents to gather
information about--as it did under the Bush administration, as it has
been allowing under the Obama administration, and as it would allow
under future Republican or Democratic administrations--any American
citizen that the Federal Government contends might be getting
information about something that they consider private.
``Clandestine intelligence activities.'' A lovely triple term,
triple-word term, that could be a gaping hole and is a gaping hole in
federal law that needs to be fixed. But unless Members of both sides of
the aisle come forward--as they initially did when I first proposed the
amendment to fix this gaping hole--and vote in a bipartisan manner to
close that gaping hole, then it is going to continue to be a problem
with the Federal Government gathering information on U.S. citizens who
have nothing to do with terrorism--nothing. There is no requirement
that they have anything to do with terrorism; they can still be caught
in this Federal web if they determine you have been picking up
information somewhere. Maybe you visited a Federal Web site, and from
the inquiry you made, they thought, hmm, that may be looking like they
are trying to clandestinely gather information. Let's go get an order
and see what all they have been doing lately.
So that is the bad news. The law needs to be fixed. The PATRIOT Act
needs to be fixed desperately. There is a bill apparently coming on
Thursday that says it will be fixing the problem, but it doesn't fix
the problem. It leaves the hole for the Federal Government. You might
as well not have a bill even though there are some good things in it.
So I hope that people will wake up. I know the bill's proponents
don't want any amendments. They say it will mess up their ticklish deal
that they negotiated, which is a bit of a problem. I am sure there will
be people who come to the floor and say, this bill is a freedom act
that has gone through the regular order. That means normally that it
has gone through a subcommittee legislative hearing, subcommittee
markup, full committee legislative hearing, full committee markup where
we vote on amendments, and anybody can bring any amendments. But, Mr.
Speaker, I would humbly submit that when somebody negotiates a backroom
deal and then they come to committee and convince the chair, the
Speaker, that this deal is too ticklish, you can't allow any amendments
to actually pass at committee, that is not regular order.
Regular order is when you are allowed to bring amendments, you have
full debate, and if you make your case, as I did, and the vote passes,
the amendment becomes part. It does not mean that you come back because
the proponents of the bill have convinced the chairman and a few
others, gee, we have got to slip this amendment back up for another
vote and vote it down because we don't want any amendments to the deal
we negotiated. That is not regular order. That is not getting full and
fair debate and vote at committee level when someone negotiates a
backroom deal and then says that you can't ever amend it because we
have got a special backroom deal here.
{time} 2045
It is time to wake up and fix the PATRIOT Act, and if it is not
fixed, then we get rid of it. It is that simple.
On the other hand, if you are a big fan of Big Brother, the all-
seeing Orwellian eye watching everything that an American citizen is
doing, then you will be encouraged because, under ObamaCare, the
Federal Government is going to have everybody's health care records.
If you see a psychiatrist, the Federal Government will have those
records. Whoever you see, whatever it is for, no matter how personal
and private it is, the Federal Government will have your records.
Now, you might say: well, but the Federal Government has firewalls,
they don't let people see records who are not supposed to.
Well, tell that to the thousand or so people whose FBI records were
found in the Clinton White House. Just possessing one FBI file
inappropriately sent Chuck Colson to prison, yet the Clinton White
House had a thousand of them.
Fortunately for the Clinton administration, they had an Attorney
General who was not about to prosecute their bosses at the White House;
but as I understand it, a thousand FBI files could be 2,000 years in
prison. It could be 4,000, but I think it is 2,000. I think it is two
minimum per file that you have.
If I recall correctly, I think Chuck Colson did about a year and a
half for having one FBI file. So it is interesting.
Some people we were told whose FBI files were located at the White
House may have changed their position on legislation that was before
the Congress. When you know the most secret--most intimate secrets
about people in this country, it is just amazing what you can get them
to do.
The Federal Government, if they have all of your health care records,
they know everything; and having listened to friends across the aisle
stand down here and berate Republicans--we don't want the Federal
Government in our bedroom--and yet, they turn around and vote for a
bill without a single Republican vote that puts the Federal Government
in the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, dining room, it puts the Federal
Government in every aspect of your life.
Then we have this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who apparently
has now determined, gee, they need people's credit card, debit card
records, so they can protect them; they will service them.
Back home, I grew up and heard cattlemen talk about taking the cow
down the road to be serviced by a bull, and I can't help but wonder
what kind of service it is that the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau is giving to the American citizen. They say: we want to gather
up everybody's records so we can protect them.
When the Federal Government has everybody's personal information,
Americans are not protected. They are subjected to being subjects
because the Federal Government can manipulate people as they wish.
This is the very kind of thing that the Founders were afraid of, one
of the many they were afraid of and thought that they had protected us
from because they gave the Congress the power of the purse; and they
really believed that, if an executive branch becomes too abusive, as
with the Gonzales Justice Department--and I don't believe for a minute
that Attorney General Gonzales had any idea that all of these thousands
of letters were going out with the power of a subpoena to get people's
most personal information, just a fishing expedition, I don't think he
knew.
But just like if someone is in charge of the VA for 5-and-a-half
years and the VA has become abusive to the detriment and death of
people they were supposed to be taking care of, it is time to get a new
coach--somebody, whether they are a war hero or not, as the current
head of the VA, somebody that will come in and clean house and demand
accountability and get it. It is time.
We have been hearing discussions also here in Washington for quite
some time about how we have got to provide legal status, some kind of
amnesty to young people who came into the United States without being
adults, so they really didn't have a say; therefore, we
[[Page H4472]]
need to give them some type of amnesty.
As I have repeatedly contended and submit, we have got to stop
talking about legal status amnesty, anything of that kind, until the
border is secure. Anyone who says I have ever advocated for the border
being sealed is a liar.
I have advocated and continue to advocate for the border to be
secure. I want immigration. We need immigration in the United States,
but it needs to be legal. It needs to be people that are authorized to
come into the United States.
We also need immigration reform, but until we have a President--I
would welcome it being this President--but until we have a President
who will secure the border and make sure it is only people who legally
come into the country, then there is no reason to pass an immigration
reform bill because he will continue to ignore the law he doesn't like
and only follow laws he does like, just as he has already done on
immigration issues.
We have heard from Chris Crane, as the union representative for the
Border Patrol. I have talked to a number of border patrolmen. They say
the same thing, that when people talk about legal status or amnesty
here in Washington, it creates a magnet drawing people from foreign
countries into this country because they think: gee, I have got to get
there quickly before the border is secured because I am going to get
amnesty if I can just get there.
It hasn't been that many years ago when there were only a handful of
children who came into the country illegally, that we knew of. The
estimates were many, many, many times that. It was estimated this year
that there will probably be 60,000 children come into this country by
the end of this year. Now, we hear that we have had more than 60,000
come in already, and it is just May.
The conservative bastion of newspapers, The New York Times--Mr.
Speaker, I am prone to sarcasm--had an article dated May 16, ``U.S.
Setting Up Emergency Shelter in Texas as Youths Cross Border Alone.''
This an article by Julia Preston that says the following:
With border authorities in south Texas overwhelmed by a
surge of young illegal migrants traveling by themselves, the
Department of Homeland Security declared a crisis this week
and moved to set up an emergency shelter for the youths at an
Air Force base in San Antonio, officials said Friday.
After seeing children packed in a Border Patrol station in
McAllen, Texas, during a visit last Sunday, Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson on Monday declared ``a level-four
condition of readiness'' in the Rio Grande Valley. The alert
was an official recognition that Federal agencies overseeing
borders, immigration enforcement, and child welfare had been
outstripped by a sudden increase in unaccompanied minors in
recent weeks.
Mr. Speaker, let me interject here. When I talk about the fact that
we hear from border patrolmen that legal status and amnesty is talked
about here in Washington, it becomes a magnet and draws people in, and
for all of the children that are drawn in illegally, you know that some
get sucked into sex slavery.
Human trafficking becomes an even bigger business, and reporters
wonder: Gee, what makes you think they are coming in greater numbers
just because people are talking about amnesty here in the United States
Congress?
The proof is there for anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear.
This New York Times article goes on:
On Sunday, Department of Health and Human Services
officials will open a shelter for up to 1,000 minors at
Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, authorities said, and will
begin transferring youths there by land and air. The level-
four alert is the highest for agencies handling children
crossing the border illegally and allows Homeland Security
officials to call on emergency resources from other agencies,
officials said.
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Johnson said the influx of
unaccompanied youths had ``zoomed to the top of my agenda''
after his encounters at the McAllen Border Patrol station
with small children, one of whom was 3.
The children are coming primarily from El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras, making the perilous journey north
through Mexico to Texas without parents or close adult
relatives. Last weekend alone, more than 1,000 unaccompanied
youths were being held at overflowing border stations in
south Texas, officials said.
The flow of child migrants has been building since 2011,
when 4,059 unaccompanied youths were apprehended by border
agents. Last year, more than 21,000 minors were caught, and
Border Patrol officials said they were expecting more than
60,000 this year, but that projection has already been
exceeded.
By law, unaccompanied children caught crossing illegally
from countries other than Mexico are treated differently from
other migrants. After being apprehended by the Border Patrol,
they must be turned over within 72 hours to a refugee
resettlement office that is part of the Health Department.
Health officials must try to find relatives or other adults
in the United States who can care for them while their
immigration cases move through the courts, a search that can
take several weeks or more.
The Health Department maintains shelters for the youths,
most run by private contractors, in the border regions.
Health officials had begun, several months ago, to add beds
in the shelters, anticipating a seasonal increase. But the
plans proved insufficient to handle a drastic increase of
youths in recent weeks, a senior administration official
said.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke with someone with a church group that was called
for help from the Department of Homeland Security saying: We have
exceeded our capacity to protect these children. We are asking church
groups that can help, please come help.
This person said it was clear that some of the young children,
females had been raped, and you can't help but wonder for the thousand
that made it across last week in that one area in Texas, how many got
lured into sex trafficking.
Oh, sure, we will get you to the United States. As a young child, we
will get you there, and once you are there, President Obama will make
sure you are taken care of, and you just come with us.
For heaven's sake, one of these was 3 years old, and we have people
here in this building saying: Oh, no, children never come by
themselves. They would never make that choice to come by themselves.
The only people who would ever come illegally would be parents who
bring the children without choices.
{time} 2100
Well, because of the talk of amnesty in this town and because we do
not have a secured border, then this administration and this Congress
also is complicit in helping lure people into sex trafficking, into
horrible situations, even people trying to cross deserts who don't make
it. That should not be.
We owe Americans, we owe the world the obligation to keep our oath,
to follow, to support the Constitution of the United States. That
requires us to follow the laws, not pick and choose which Federal laws
we care to ignore because we don't like them, as our Attorney General
has advocated. That makes him a violator of his constitutional oath. We
should be following in our oaths, not breaking them.
When you hear about children being lured into this country by
promises made by people in this town as to how good it is going to be--
oh, we are going to get amnesty through, and for any child that can get
here before the border is secured so we only allow legally approved
people in, just come on, however you can get here--we are luring people
into horrible, horrible situations.
It is time to start acting responsibly. That does not mean that we
continue to send the message that is being signaled by this
administration that, gee, if you can just get to the United States as a
child, we will take care of you. If we can't find your parents who are
illegally in the country, then we will find somebody to take care of
you legally. We are going to allow you to overwhelm this country.
We have people saying, oh, if we just legalize everybody that is
here, all of this new tax money will come flooding in. People that are
working are already paying taxes, and we have an awful lot of people
that are working who are not legally here, who are getting vast amounts
of money for their child tax credit that allows them to get back more
money than they put in.
There can be no debate that young children who are not working, even
if they are legalized, for those who make the argument, gee, look at
all the tax money that the Federal coffers will be getting if we just
legalize everybody here, that is a bogus argument. It is a strained
argument by people who want more people coming in illegally.
It is time we took our oath seriously, began enforcing our laws, not
sealing
[[Page H4473]]
the border, but securing the border. Once it is secured, as confirmed
by border States, not by Homeland Security that can't be trusted, but
by border States, unanimously telling us, okay, Federal Government, we
can affirm, we can certify that the border to our State is secure, then
we can move ahead with immigration reform. Until that time, we need to
quit talking about it. Anybody that is tempted to continue talking
about it needs to go down to the border and see a 3-year-old that got
lured into this country because of that kind of talk: Just get here.
Obviously, a 3-year-old had someone convince them that they needed to
try to get here and helped to get them here. I wonder how many other 3-
year-olds got talked into coming along for the ride and didn't make it?
Maybe their parents or some loved one paid money to human traffickers
thinking, gee, if I can get my really young child into the United
States, then they get amnesty, then they can claim me as their parent
so I can come in, and then I can take care of them even though I am not
an American citizen, and that will allow them to draw more people in.
So it is foreseeable that parents could send children.
It is tough to ever give up a child. Moses' mother did it to try to
secure a better life for him.
How many parents have let their child go with human traffickers,
hoping for a better life for their child, only to find out later their
child never made it to America? Sending them from South America, from
Central America, across country, clear across the length of Mexico has
got to be a risky move.
This story from The New York Times says:
Mr. Johnson said the young migrants became a more ``vivid''
issue for him after he persuaded his wife to spend Mother's
Day with him at the station in McAllen. He said he asked a
12-year-old girl where her mother was. She responded
tearfully that she did not have a mother, and was hoping to
find her father who was living somewhere in the United
States, Mr. Johnson said.
Mr. Johnson said he had spoken on Monday with the
ambassadors from Mexico and the three central American
countries to seek their cooperation, and had begun a
publicity campaign to dissuade youths from embarking for the
United States.
``We have to discourage parents from sending for their
children to cross the southwest border because of the risks
involved. A south Texas processing center is no place for a
child,'' Mr. Johnson said.
Officials said many youths are fleeing gang violence at
home, while some are seeking to unite with parents in the
United States. A majority of unaccompanied minors are not
eligible to remain legally in the United States and are
eventually returned home.
Well, Secretary Johnson can say we need to dissuade more young people
from trying to make the perilous trip across Latin America, Central
America to try to get into the United States, but actions speak louder
than words. When the actions are that, if you can just get to the
United States, Mr. Johnson's Homeland Security will take care of you,
will get you three hot meals, a bed to sleep in, if we can't find your
parents illegally in the United States, then we will find you some
other parents, people are being drawn in.
They know if their child comes in and is given a legal place, a legal
status, then they will be able to come in on the backs of their
children's legal status so they can take care of them.
It is time to stop the luring of young children across the border by
the activities of this administration. It is time for Congress to stop
luring people across the border by talk of amnesty. It is time to stop.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, there was an article today, from
Breitbart, by Caroline May. It says:
The Department of Homeland Security has only requested that
the State Department invoke visa sanctions against a country
that refuses or delays accepting an immigrant facing
deportation back to their country once, over a decade ago.
The article says:
A State Department official confirmed to Breitbart News
Monday that the only time the State Department invoked visa
sanctions at the request of DHS was in 2001 against Guyana.
Last week the Center for Immigration Studies reported that
an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement document
revealed that last year ICE released 36,007 criminal
immigrants awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings.
According to ICE, many of the releases were mandatory, some
as required by court cases--it mentions one--in which the
Supreme Court held that the government cannot indefinitely
detain an immigrant if there is ``no significant likelihood
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.''
Over the weekend, CIS experts postulated that Secretaries
of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry bear partial blame
for some of the 36,007 criminal immigrants released last
year, estimating that 3,000 releases were ``mandatory''--due
to the Supreme Court case--because of their apparent failure
to invoke a statute requiring the DHS Secretary to request
the Secretary of State to stop issuing visas to those
countries that do not take back or delay taking their
citizens back.
There is a total breakdown in the protection of this country and our
borders when it comes to enforcing the law. There are some areas where
the law is being enforced. There are some areas where Border Patrol is
doing absolutely everything they physically can to enforce the law. But
because the President's commitment is to having navigators as being
more important than having Border Patrol, then we have a leaking sieve
at our borders.
Because the Federal Government, this administration is more committed
to having new IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare, agents, navigators,
bureaucrats that will never so much as put a Band-Aid on a hurt, this
administration considers them more important for health care than
doctors, nurses, people that actually do good.
I have been hearing this last week in my district about doctors and
nurses being laid off but bureaucrats being hired right and left by the
Federal Government, health care bureaucrats. They are not going to save
a life. They are going to create more paperwork. They are going to
create more burden for people that actually do the healing and
treating. They are currently making their lives miserable with
paperwork and with computer work.
Some doctors have already told me they were retired or retiring
because they are just not going to be answering to bureaucrats that
don't know about the treatment they provide. Yet this administration
thinks more bureaucrats, more IRS agents, more navigators--who, by the
way, we hear reports are getting voter registration forms to people
that they are signing up. So, gee, they may not be providing health
care, they may be providing misinformation about health care, they may
be telling people to get on Web sites that don't work, but they are
getting them registered to vote. How about that?
Mr. Speaker, look, it is time that the Federal Government, through
the executive branch, started fulfilling their oaths to enforce the
laws as they are. It is time that this Congress, like in the case of
the PATRIOT Act and the so-called USA FREEDOM Act that is going to
leave a gaping hole in the manner in which the Federal Government can
continue to get personal information that has nothing to do with
terrorism, it is time for all of us to step up to the plate and do our
jobs and follow our oaths.
{time} 2115
Once that is accomplished, there will be more jobs for people because
the economy will improve. There will be more health care for people
because we get more doctors and nurses and fewer bureaucrats. It is
time we started living up to our commitment to the American people.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
