Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, crisis: IRS emails have vaporized.

Where, oh, where have the emails gone? Where, oh, where can they be? In another Friday evening news dump, the administration announced that 2 years of Lois Lerner's emails have vanished. Poof, gone.

That is not all. Today, we learned that the emails of six other prominent IRS officials involved in targeting conservatives have disappeared. Poof, gone. Isn't that an oddly convenient disappearance?

Have they gone to the same place the missing 18 minutes of Nixon's Watergate tapes went? The IRS blames the well-timed fiasco on a computer glitch.

Mr. Speaker, what do you suppose would happen if the IRS came to a citizen's home to audit their taxes and the citizen said, sorry, the records were lost in a computer crash? The tax collector would laugh.

It is time for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS and find out where, oh, where have those emails gone. This yarn by the IRS requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Mr. Speaker, that dog just won't hunt.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 295 on H.R. 4745, I voted ``yes.'' My recorded vote should reflect my intention to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, since our founding, Americans have always had to fight for the liberty and freedom that we have. Throughout our history, we have had allies from other parts of the world on our side ready to help us, and we have been ready to help them stand together for freedom over tyranny.

Today, I want to commemorate one of our most important allies: the people of Serbia. For more than 130 years, we have had a close relationship with the Serbian people.

I have on my staff here in Washington a Serbian American, Blair Bjellos, who is my victim's advocate. When I was in Texas as a judge, my chief of staff, Elaine Dudich Stolte, who now runs the best children's assessment center in the world, worked for me. Both are of Serbian descent.

Our friendship with the Serbians is based on our shared belief in democracy and standing up for liberty. During both World War I and World War II, our two countries fought on the same battlefield and our people shared and shed blood together. Because of that brotherhood, we have a special relationship.

During World War I, Austria-Hungary tried to pick a fight with Serbia, through the July Ultimatum. Of course, the Ultimatum wasn't a deal at all, and it was purposely unacceptable and meant to provoke a war with the two nations. Despite being 10 times smaller than Austria- Hungary, Serbia, an independent, freedom-loving nation, refused to back down to the aggressor. Like a true David versus Goliath, the Serbian people fought valiantly with us against the central powers in World War I. In the end, 25 percent of the Serbian population was killed during that war.

Despite the toll World War I took on Serbia, when World War II started, they were allies again. There are numerous accounts of bravery that the Serbs conducted during World War II, and a lot of that was not known to the world until recently. I just want to talk about one of those.

Perhaps the most inspiring report of bravery and brotherhood was shown during the Halyard Mission, when Serbian General Draza Mihailovich and Serbian American George Vujnovich led a mission to save American pilots that had been shot down by Nazi planes behind the lines in Serbia.

In 1944, hundreds of B-17 and B-24 fighter pilots and their crews were shot down by the Nazi Luftwaffe over what we now know as Serbia. General Mihailovich immediately began finding those pilots and members of the crew and hid them in barns and farmhouses throughout Serbia, wherever he could find them shelter. He and his men and local Serbian civilians hid our troops. They risked their lives in doing so, and many of them later paid the consequences when the Nazis found out about it.

When Mihailovich radioed Washington to alert them of his actions, here in the United States, Vujnovich, an OSS agent of Serbian descent, found out and planned a daring rescue mission. Vujnovich would train Allied Forces on how to act like Serbs and sneak them into Nazi territory to save the downed pilots and their crews. Once in, they would help guide U.S. planes into the country to pick up the downed pilots.

With the help of local Serbs, the undercover U.S. soldiers and General Mihailovich built a makeshift runway in just 9 days. They had no sophisticated tools or machinery. They just used oxen, wagons, brute strength, and the tools that they could find. Over the next 6 months, Allied planes flew right under Nazi noses to land on that crude airstrip.

I was most fortunate to have known one of those brave men. Serbian George Dudich was among those who risked his life to save those American downed pilots. When Mr. Dudich and his family later came to the United States after Communist Tito took over, he took time to find many of those downed pilots and crew members to meet with them once again. In total, the Halyard Mission saved 512 U.S. airmen. Not one American was lost, although many Serbs died in those rescues. Unfortunately, the United States took the wrong side after the war and we supported Tito, a communist, rather than Mihailovich, to lead Serbia.

We did not recognize Mihailovich's deeds until recently, and now he has been awarded the Legion of Merit; and Vujnovich, at 95 years old, received a Bronze Star from the United States.

Many Americans and many American Serbs served together then, and I want to congratulate the relationship and commemorate the relationship between the United States and Serbia during the wars and the relationship the two countries have today.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to introduce an amendment to strike section 165 from the underlying bill. Section 165 states that no funds ``in this or any other act'' may be available for a light or heavy rail project in Houston, Texas, if the route goes through Richmond or down Post Oak Boulevard.

This language is contrary to the will of the voters of Harris County, Texas, and should not be included in this Federal Government appropriations bill. Houstonians voted in support of new transportation options for the Houston area in a local referendum in 2003. Now some disagree with the results of that referendum, but local voters have made their decision, and I rise to support their right to make these decisions in Houston, Texas, and in local elections without the interference of Congress.

If the Federal Government has the right to overrule a local election and referendum, then what is next?

Blocking Federal funds via obscure riders in appropriations bills in order to try and steer routing decisions is wrong. It is inappropriate overreach by the Federal Government. It violates the will of the voters of Harris County, and, ultimately, it hurts the City of Houston, Texas.

For Members outside of Texas who may be unfamiliar with this debate, the precedent that this language will set, if allowed to remain in the bill, is far-reaching, and it will affect more than just Texas. The passage of this language as is means that local votes just don't matter to Congress and that local officials don't really decide transportation matters in each State and city because these decisions can be toyed with and overruled by Congress.

This language is also bad policy. It is a throwback to the old Houston when our only transportation plan was to build more highways as far as the eye could see and block attempts to do anything else.

Houston has one of the most expansive and efficient highway systems in the world, and, with the soon-to-be-completed Grand Parkway, the system will be even better, but we can only build so many roads. We can only build so many concrete monstrosities like the I-10 West corridor. Over 130,000 people moved to Harris County last year. That is as many as in Charleston, South Carolina, and another estimated 150,000 will move to Harris County next year. Houston will soon be the third largest city in the country, overtaking Chicago. With this increase in population, we need solutions for transportation, not attempts to stonewall all options from Washington.

The debate that we are having on the floor is not about whether or not METRO is doing a good job, nor is it even about METRO. We know that METRO has had its fair share of problems over the years. It must get its financial house in order, and it must become efficient. It also must get the credibility it needs from the voters once again, but it is not our job to debate that local issue in Congress. The voters in a local referendum made that decision 11 years ago. It is an inappropriate misuse of authority to divert money away from Houston because the Federal Government disagrees with the outcome of a local election. As the saying goes, we need to let Texans run Texas. These decisions should be made at the local level.

Supporters of this language may try to argue that this is an attempt at fiscal responsibility. That is nonsense. This money is already appropriated for Houston. If Houston doesn't use it, it is not going back into the coffers, and it is not going to pay down the national debt. The money is going to some other city that will take the money. The idea that we will not take available transportation money for Houston sets a bad precedent for Houston because the next time Houston wants some Federal money, which is taxpayer money, we

may not be so fortunate to get that money, because the folks up here said: Well, we offered you money once before, and you didn't take it. No more money for transportation.

Houston is a donor State. Of the funds we send up here, 91 percent is all we get back. We don't get the other 9 percent.

This is about the availability of transportation money to Houston, Texas. The underlying bill prohibits that money because of certain factors in the Houston area that don't like the outcome of this election and that don't like light rail. Debate that issue in the city. Let city officials make that decision. Let METRO make that decision. Let there be a lively debate among the citizens who are affected by light rail, but don't let Congress come in and overrule the will of the people of Houston, Texas, in an election that they had 11 years ago to accept Federal funding when it is appropriate for us to take it.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters from the North Montrose Civic Association, the Greater Houston Partnership, the Upper Kirby Management District, the Transportation Advocacy Group Houston Region, the Women in Transportation, letters from the mayor's office, the Washington Avenue Improvement Committee, Houston Tomorrow, and other letters that I have received in support of my amendment.

Greater Houston Partnership,

Houston, Texas, June 6, 2014.

Subject: Federal funding is crucial for Houston

Hon. Ted Poe,

House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC

Dear Congressman Poe: On behalf of the 2,100 members of the

Greater Houston Partnership (GHP), we thank you for your

leadership in Congress. In particular, we thank you for your

efforts to ensure that every dollar of federal funding that

is available to the greater Houston region continues to flow

to our region.

As an economic development organization we have been

successful in attracting new businesses and development to

our region since our establishment in 1989. In 2013, we

estimate that our region brought in more than 300 projects,

totaling more than $20 billion in capital investment, more

than 20,000 new employees, and more than 30 million square

feet in development. Since 2009, the businesses that GHP

attracted to our region equates to $22.9 billion in economic

development. A significant reason for our success has been

our ability to leverage federal dollars in order to guarantee

that our infrastructure is highly functional and our business

climate is attractive. When relocating, businesses are

attracted to cities that are progressing and planning for the

future.

At GHP, we continuously analyze issues of regional

significance. Importantly, we also survey the Houston

business community as well as business leaders across the

nation and around the world to gauge perceptions about how

Houston compares to other major metropolitan areas. One

challenge for our region is the need to improve the

attractiveness and quality of life aspects of Houston.

Without improvements we will not be able to attract global

talent and address local socioeconomic gaps that can hinder

our region. Houston simply cannot afford to have limitations

on federal funding or turn away money that can be utilized to

make our region a better place to live, work and build a

business. We are setting a bad precedent.

As the largest business organization in the greater Houston

region we encourage you to continue to stand up for your

constituents. We share your commitment and dedication to the

betterment of our region, and we thank you for your

leadership on this issue. We stand ready to assist.

Regards,

Bob Harvey,

President & CEO.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded voted on my amendment to the end that the amendment stand rejected by the earlier voice vote.

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 2: Page 52, strike lines 13 through 21.

Mr. Speaker, it was raining as the English Channel churned and tossed the Americans in the landing craft. The sun was coming up over the horizon, but no one could see it through the gray clouds. Thousands of teenage liberators stared into the distance to see the high cliffs of Normandy, France. It was D-Day, June 6, 1944--70 years ago.

Expecting to land on Omaha Beach at 6:30 am ahead of other Allied Forces, Texan Lt. Col. James Earl Rudder led the United States Army Rangers' 2nd Ranger Battalion into what seemed like an impossible feat.

As the treacherous weather conjured crashing waves five to six feet tall, a shifting wind tossed the Rangers off course. The mist, clouds and smoke obscured the navigation, making it hard to locate Pointe-du- Hoc from a mile out at sea. Their landing was delayed by forty minutes. Already, the mission seemed doomed. This navigational error meant two things: They would have to sail parallel to the coast facing intense enemy fire. It gave the enemy time to recover and prepare for the next assault.

For almost half an hour, the Rangers rode along the coast as bullets were flying all around them. Some Rangers were hit by enemy fire. But bleeding or not, still they pushed forward.

They battled the wind as the pelting rain blurred their vision and soaked their climbing equipment. They were exhausted and tense. The landing crafts that brought the GIs to shore were beginning to take on water, presenting yet another obstacle for Rudder's Rangers. Water began to leak in through the front ramp of the landing crafts, so the Rangers ripped up the floorboards and used their helmets to bail out the alarming amount of water rushing in all while the Nazis fired down at them atop the cliffs.

One of the landing crafts sunk from the weather and enemy fire. The brutal conditions of the sea caused others in the landing crafts to become violently seasick. Finally, the Rangers reached the eastern side of the Pointe, their new designated landing spot. It was now 7:10 am The battle had just begun, and the odds were stacking up against Rudder's success.

The Rangers were miserable, cold, wet and seasick; some bleeding from injury but none wavered. Their mission: to conquer the cliffs at Pointe-du-Hoc and find the big German guns. The guns could reap havoc on later landings.

No longer was the weather their only enemy. As the first shoe print was made in the wet sand of Normandy, the Rangers came under brutal fire from atop the cliffs as the enemy chunked grenades down at them. The men had to resist the urge to take out the machine guns because the primary mission was to climb. Fifteen men were already lost in the crossing of the beach. Divided into three units, Lt. Col. Rudder prepared to lead the Provisional Rangers, task force A of 250 men up the cliffs. They moved quickly with precision and expertise. They shifted through the chaos that ensued around them all while operating soaking wet equipment. (The ropes attached to the grappling hooks were heavy with water and thus could not reach the top of the cliffs when launched from a mortar.)

The Rangers used rope ladders, a few dry grappling hooks and steel ladders to scale the cliffs. Their machine guns were clogged with mud. Amidst enemy fire and malfunctioning equipment, the Rangers were flung back and forth climbing the wet ropes.

While some Rangers provided cover on the beach, amazingly, the first ones to the top, conquered the cliff in 10 minutes. They in turn provided covering fire for the ones still on the beach.

As soon as the Rangers pulled themselves over the cliff, snipers immediately fired. Fortunately, the heaving bombing the Americans had done to the island in the days beforehand had created large craters in earth. This allowed the Rangers to hide themselves from the enemy fire.

Within half an hour, the remaining task forces had made it up the tall cliffs. Rudder, bleeding from two gunshot wounds, never let his focus waver or his determination grow weary. He discovered quickly that the Germans had left wooden decoys in the gun casements. Exhausted, wounded and bewildered, Rudder kept pushing the Rangers inland. They had to find the big guns. Around 8:00 am small patrols were sent south to locate the missing guns. By 9:00 am, their second goal completed. Now, they had to take them out.

The Rangers had located the missing guns 600 yards south of the Pointe. The Nazis had hidden the guns back from the beach to protect them from Allied air strikes and naval bombardment.

Rudders' Rangers took out the emplacements using thermite grenades and eliminated the enemy protecting them.

The mission though completed in spite of the horrific obstacles was not without cost. Rudder's Rangers had over 50 percent casualties. Some Rangers gave their lives that summer morning conquering the cliffs.

As American blood was shed on the French beaches and cliffs, General Rudder had secured the beachhead for later Allied Forces coming ashore. This paved the way to eventual victory.

In the months leading up to the Normandy Invasion, Rudder's elite group of Army Rangers underwent rigorous training in preparation for the part that they would play for the invasion named Overlord at Normandy.

Colonel Rudder put his 2nd Ranger Battalion through hell in order to prepare them for their mission at Pointe du Hoc. He made them march in full gear for over 20 miles. He had them train in hand to hand combat, climb rope ladders without safety harnesses and endure difficult amphibious training.

The success that the Rangers had on D-Day was a direct result of Rudder's intense personal involvement with their training. The amount of effort and dedication he put forth into the training is why the troops were able to manage the chaos and complete their mission. Rudder made sure that every man was prepared to do the impossible.

James Earl Rudder was born in the small Texas town of Eden, about 45 miles southeast of San Angelo, in 1910. After graduating from high school, he played football for two years at Tarleton State. He then transferred to Texas A&M in 1930. He graduated in 1932 with a degree in education. After graduation he joined the US Army Reserves as a second lieutenant.

In 1937, he married Margaret Williamson (who graduated from the University of Texas), and together they had five children. In 1941, he was doing what he loved, coaching football, when duty called.

These brave men who cracked the Nazi grip on Europe began with the liberation of France 70 years ago. From there, the Rangers went on to fight in the Battle of the Bulge and U.S. forces on to Germany. Nothing like it had ever been done before in history. Over 150,000 Allied soldiers hit the beaches during the assault landings on the 6th of June. By the 4th of July, over 1 million joined in the invasion force through Normandy. It was a miraculous feat for 1944.

Colonel Rudder received many military honors including the second highest award, the Distinguished Service Cross. He was a full Colonel by the end of the war and was promoted to Brigadier General of the U.S. Army Reserves in 1954 and Major General in 1957.

After the war, Rudder returned to Texas. He remained a highly successful and distinguished Texan until his death.

He served as Mayor of Brady for 6 years, visited the White House frequently--advising Lyndon Baines Johnson on many military issues and was hired to clean up the corruption going on in the General Land Office.

Col. Rudder became president of Texas A&M University in 1959 and president of the entire A&M system in 1965, holding both positions until his death in 1970.

The boys of D-Day came; they liberated; and some went home. Over 9,000 other GIs are buried at the top of the cliffs of Normandy France. As we reflect on those Rangers on D-Day, 70 years ago, and the Texan who led them into battle, Lt. Col. James Earl Rudder, we once again marvel at the lives of those we call the Greatest Generation of Americans. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Rogers for supporting this amendment but, more importantly, for his work on the Intelligence Committee for so many years and, prior to that, your work with the FBI.

As a former judge, I got to see a lot of FBI agents come and testify in Texas, and they have a wonderful reputation. You also have that reputation, and thank you for your service in law enforcement and in the House.

I also want to thank the ranking member for his support, generally, for this amendment.

This amendment requires the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with relevant agencies, to produce a strategy to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates.

The amendment requires that the President clearly define groups like core al Qaeda and al Qaeda affiliates and other terms the administration uses to define this enemy of America.

Al Qaeda continues to threaten the security of the United States and our allies, both here at home and abroad. Our intelligence services and our military have scored some real gains against al Qaeda, but al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is still able to provide technical, tactical, and strategic direction to its affiliates throughout the world.

Al Qaeda has gone from on the verge of strategic defeat to a serious and growing threat, depending on who you ask in our intelligence services or even the administration. Today, al Qaeda controls more territory than it ever has. The fight against al Qaeda is far from over, and it will continue to grow.

As chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, I have held over a dozen bipartisan hearings focusing on this very topic. Once again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including this TNT Subcommittee in some of the work we have been doing together on the very issue of intelligence.

During these 12 hearings in our subcommittee, we have yet to find a witness who can articulate or even agree with the administration's counterterrorism strategy or what it is or describe how the administration really views al Qaeda and its threat. This seems to be a problem. This needs to be clarified, so that all of us know exactly what our strategy is nationwide and worldwide.

So this amendment is necessary, so we can all get on the same page in the hymnal with a clear strategy to defeat al Qaeda, so we understand what al Qaeda is really doing today in 2014. This is a constantly changing movement, and al Qaeda today isn't the same as the al Qaeda in 2001.

We need to have a clear understanding of who we are fighting and how we are going to defeat the al Qaeda terrorists. Drone strikes and target raids are not a strategy; they are tactics. Therefore, I support this amendment, and I urge support by the committee and the whole House.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it was 70 years ago. The sky was gray, the

rain pelted the teenage Americans as they were part of the greatest amphibious attack in world history.

It was June 6, 1944--D-Day. The rough seas of the English Channel tossed GIs about in the landing craft as they came under intense brutal fire from the enemy on the French shore. In spite of high casualties on the beaches, they moved forward. They climbed the unbelievable cliffs, and the troops were successful in driving the enemy from the French coast.

Their success allowed more Americans to follow in future waves and later days and later weeks.

My dad, Sergeant Virgil Poe, was one of them who came later. The GIs--they came, they liberated, and some went home. The others lie in graves atop the cliffs of Normandy, France. Their crosses and Stars of David glisten in the sun where 9,000 Americans are buried.

We appreciate and remember all of them for giving up their youth so we could have a future.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the National Council of Georgia declared Georgia's independence on May 26, 1918. After 117 years, the statehood of Georgia was finally restored. But Georgia's fight for independence was not over.

In February 1921, Georgia was attacked by the Red Army. The Democratic Republic of Georgia was no more.

Now the Georgia Soviet Socialist Republic, Georgia was in the midst of World War II. Georgia contributed almost 700,000 fighters, and provided vital textiles and munitions to the Allies.

For the next 46 years, the Soviets occupied Georgia but Georgia was not complacent with Soviet rule. After the Soviet Union fell apart, Georgia finally became free again.

Since regaining its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Georgia has been a steadfast U.S. strategic partner in an important and often turbulent part of the world.

But a certain country to the north does not like the fact that we are friends. In fact, the Napoleon of Siberia--as I like to call Putin--is set on breaking U.S. apart and restoring the glory days of the Soviet Union.

As a country that continues to struggle against Russia's tyranny, Georgia knows better than anyone the threat Putin poses. Mr. Putin cannot be allowed to invade another sovereign country. The best way to stand up to Russia is to stand up together, as we have done so many times before.

From the American perspective, there are few NATO strategic partners as capable and committed as Georgia. Georgia has been a key ally in our war on terror. Georgia's soldiers have stood shoulder to shoulder with ours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Georgia is the largest non-NATO contributor to the mission in Afghanistan. It has also served as a key logistical hub bringing troops and supplies in and out of the region. We have in turn, demonstrated our commitment to our relationship with the U.S.-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership.

Since the signing of the Charter, the United States and Georgia have strengthened their mutual cooperation. Cooperation based on U.S. support for Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and its commitment to further democratic and economic reforms.

I would like to see the U.S. be more vocally supportive of Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations and provide a clear path to its eventual membership in NATO.

In February, Representative Keating and I proudly introduced a bill that affirms the U.S. Government's support for Georgia's eventual membership in NATO. It also calls on the Obama administration and our allies in Europe to formally extend to Georgia a Membership Action Plan at this year's NATO Summit in Wales.

We must stand with those who have stood with us. We must honor independence by preserving independence. Together, I believe the United States and Georgia can help all peoples of the world hold on to the sweet taste of freedom.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, in a changing world full of danger, the greatest threat to the United States and the rest of the world remains the same--the Iranian regime.

This was once again demonstrated through the words of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In a speech recently, he said that the Iranians who wish to negotiate with the United States are committing treason. He made it clear that the jihad battle will continue endlessly until they ``get rid of the oppressors'' with ``America at the head of it.''

Mr. Speaker, the Iranian regime believes their battle will not be over until America is destroyed. The blissful, unrealistic, and naive hope to the contrary, Iran has no plans to stop its development of nukes. The Supreme Leader said: ``The accelerated scientific advancement of the last 12 years cannot stop under any circumstances.''

Iran has time and time again lied about its nuclear weapons capability and development. America should realize that the ruler of Iran wants to destroy us in the name of religion by any means necessary. The United States should tighten sanctions against Iran, not relax them.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), my friend, for this amendment and not only this, but his hard work on victims' issues, even before he came to Congress, in California, being the author of the concept of the three strikes and you are out rule that is in California and many other States. I want to congratulate him on this.

Madam Chair, the VOCA fund, Victims of Crime Act fund, is a great idea. What it is is, when criminals are convicted in Federal court, Federal judges impose fees and fines on that criminal, and that money goes into a fund that is designed to go to victims of crime.

Great idea, let those criminals pay the rent on the courthouse, pay for the system they have created. $10 billion is in that fund, but less than 10 percent of it gets spent every year. Why is that? Because more money keeps coming in; those Federal judges are nailing those criminals, and more money keeps coming into the fund every year. It is $10 billion. Now, we are only spending a little bit of it for victims services.

The reason is--this is my opinion--fuzzy math in the accounting procedure. If more money is spent, for some reason, that is counted as an increase in spending, even though it is not taxpayer money. The money belongs to victims, funded by criminals; so, because of the accounting procedure, we are only able to spend a fraction of the money each year.

We want to spend more of the money because more keeps coming in. Victims deserve it. As my friend said, it is immoral that this money is not spent for victims that is in this fund.

We understand the problem with the point of order. We would like future possibility to have the bill that Mr. Costa and I have sponsored, to get it on the floor. To make it very simple, the money that goes in the fund goes to victims, and it is not used to pay offsets for other government projects.

I thank the gentleman. I do want to thank Chairman Wolf for working with us--he understands the problem--working with us to try to spend more of the money that belongs to victims that criminals have donated, maybe unwillingly, to the system.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the American Community Survey, first of all, is not the Census. What it is is a survey conducted by the Census Bureau of a portion of the American population every year. It has 48 questions, and those questions are intrusive.

There is, in my opinion, intimidation by the Community Survey workers to get this information from citizens.

A single mother in my district told me one of the workers came by her house and started peeping in the window, knocking on the door, and sat in the street waiting for her to come home from work to get this information from her.

The information is intrusive. It violates the right of privacy, in my opinion. It asks questions like: How many times have you been married? Does anyone in your household have a mental problem? What time do you go to work? And: How many toilets do you have?

It is 48 very intrusive questions.

My amendment is very simple. It prohibits the Federal Government from enforcing a potential fine against a person for failure to fill out this information. Right now, if a person doesn't fill out this information, Community Survey workers tell the citizen that they can be fined $5,000.

Do we really want to fine Americans $5,000 for not telling the government how many toilets they have in their home?

There are other ways this information can be gathered by the government without being intrusive and without violating the right of privacy.

I would ask Members to support my amendment to prohibit a fine being imposed on the American Community Survey, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would make this simple comment. This information can be gathered by other means without violating the right of privacy of citizens, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 262, I intended to vote ``no'' rather than the recorded vote of ``yes.'' I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

Offered By: Mr. Poe of Texas

Amendment No. 28: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 541. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to enforce section 221 of title 13, United States

Code, with respect to the American Community Survey.

Mr. Speaker, on Memorial Day, I was at Houston National Cemetery with Texas veterans and their families. They were irate about the allegations against the VA. They want to know what we plan to do about it.

In a July 2012 speech, President Obama said: ``I promised to strengthen the VA, and that promise has been kept.'' Thanks to whistleblowers, we now know that statement is not accurate.

The more we hear about the VA's treatment of veterans, the worse it gets. And over the past few weeks, we have learned that 26 VA facilities nationwide are being investigated for cooking the books, ensuring that the long wait times sick veterans have to endure are hidden from the public. Secret waiting lists, hidden agendas all driven by the greed of those at the highest level of the VA.

Why greed? Why cook the books? Because if wait times are reported low, VA officials receive bonuses. VA workers have allegedly used different tactics and strategies to give the impression that they were meeting the Department's standard of seeing patients between 14 and 30 days.

To promote this lie, the Phoenix VA hospital allegedly had a secret waiting list to conceal delays and wait times. Meanwhile, dozens of patients' conditions worsened, and many died waiting in line. It has been reported that between 1,400 and 1,600 sick veterans had to wait months to see a doctor.

The Phoenix VA was not the only place where fraud took place. In my home State of Texas, it has been reported that the VA officials in San Antonio and Austin purposely manipulated appointment data to hide the long wait times.

According to whistleblower reports, top level VA staff directed workers to ``ensure wait times were as close to zero as possible,'' in other words, juggle the books. He went on:

It's plain and simple common sense . . . If you have a

patient who has a delay in diagnosis of any cancer, that

cancer did not stop growing while they were waiting for the

doctor to see them.

Mr. Speaker, treating our veterans like cattle in line at the stockyards is unacceptable. Our warriors are dying in line.

According to The Daily Beast, a whistleblower in the Texas VA described this as ``an organized crime syndicate . . . People up on top are suddenly afraid they may actually be prosecuted, and they're pressuring the little guys down below to cover it all up.''

According to the whistleblower, the problem comes from the higher- ups. ``If VA directors report long delays, they won't stay a director very long, and they certainly won't get promoted.''

``No one is getting rewarded for honesty. They pretty much have to lie; if they don't, they don't go anywhere.''

``If one person comes up with a way to cheat on a report to the government and profit from that lie, that's defrauding the government.''

``If hundreds of people are defrauding the government, it's a conspiracy, and that's what you've got now, and it runs coast to coast and bottom to top.''

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the administration to stop claiming ignorance and blaming lower-level operatives for a scandal that has been driven from higher up. Secretary Shinseki has overseen a Department that has now been called a ``criminal syndicate.'' He should just be fired.

Those money-hungry executives at the VA who engaged in secret illegal activity that has resulted in veterans dying should be treated for what they are--criminals. And those veterans who are still waiting in line should be given waivers to see the private doctor of their choice.

Mr. Speaker, cancer does not wait for government bureaucracy, incompetence, and delay. American warriors have died in lands far, far away. But now, other American warriors are dying in the United States, in line, waiting for VA health care. Put those that committed crimes in line for the stockade, and fix the problem.

And that's just the way it is.