[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 62 (Monday, May 6, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2424-H2428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CURRENT EVENTS
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, it's always an honor to come to the floor
of the House of Representatives, especially when there's so much of
great importance occurring in our Nation at this time.
We do need health care reform, and I appreciate my friends across the
aisle talking about the importance of good health care.
I've continued to hear people find that they are going to lose their
health insurance. I was talking to numerous employers this past week
who say, I want to compete and have been notified insurance is going up
higher next year. I heard from a small business employer, I'm not going
to be able to carry insurance. I love my employees. I provide them good
insurance. But come January, too many of my competitors have said they
can't afford to keep the insurance for their employees, and so they're
going to drop it and pay the $2,000 fine because $2,000 is so much
cheaper than the cost of health insurance.
The reason we were told for pushing through the ObamaCare bill in a
very partisan way was because there were 30 million or so who did not
have insurance; and as some have indicated, there may be that many who
lose their insurance as a result of ObamaCare. So I'm very concerned.
I, like my friends across the aisle, want to make sure not that
people have insurance necessarily, but that they have affordable health
care. And I'm hearing from health care providers that they're hearing
from people who are no longer going to carry insurance for their
employees, that it's going to be more and more expensive to provide
health care since they made money off those who had insurance; and
without people having the insurance they had in the past, as the
President promised and has been made very clear was not true, there
will be more pressure on those who are paying for their health care to
pay substantially more, which means there are more people who will not
be able to afford it, and it will break the system. Of course, with
health insurance companies complaining that because of the things
they're forced to cover, their insurance is going to necessarily have
to go up.
There will likely be insurance companies that will have to give up
the health insurance business, and then the administration can complain
that, Well, we thought we were going to be able to work with the greedy
health insurance companies; but as it turns out, they've gone out of
business and doctors have abandoned their practices and retired early.
So it looks like the government is going to have to take over the
health care business.
Under ObamaCare, the Federal Government is already going to have
everybody's health records. Their most private and personal secrets
between them and their health care provider will then be available to
the Federal Government and, as I understand it, to General Electric,
who this administration, because of their great support of General
Electric in this administration and their cozy working relationship,
they'll have the contract to take care of everybody's health care
records. So that will be just delightful.
The tragic thing, just as the one lady asked during the town hall
that the President had at the White House when she asked about her
elderly mother getting a pacemaker, though she was of late years--I
believe 95--and that she's had the pacemaker for 10 or 11 years, would
the panel that decided who would get what treatment, would they
consider the quality of life of an individual in determining whether or
not
[[Page H2425]]
they get a pacemaker or such things, and the answer the President
ultimately gave is, Well, let's face it. Maybe we're better off telling
your mother that instead of a pacemaker you get a pain pill.
So it's very clear that as we approach the day when ObamaCare kicks
in fully, there will be more and more seniors, whatever age this
panel--it's not really a death panel--but it will decide who gets
pacemakers and who is perhaps too old or maybe has lived a good life
but now is beyond being worthy of, in this administration's opinion,
getting a new knee or a new hip or back surgery, those kinds of things.
You'll have bureaucrats that are deciding those issues all in the name
of helping people with their health care. Because as anyone who
seriously looks deeply into socialized medicine finds out, the only way
for socialized medicine to stay afloat is if you have people dying
while they're waiting on a list to get their particular procedures.
I mentioned on the floor, I believe last year, about a report from
England that they're hoping to reduce the length of time that patients
have to wait for their procedures, whether therapeutic or diagnostic,
surgery, therapy, whatever it is, reduce that wait from the time it's
prescribed until the time it's obtained down to 10 months.
{time} 2040
Well, there are a lot of people that we know find out they have
cancer, they have some problem, perhaps need a bypass, and if they
don't get it immediately, then they don't make it for 10 months. So
that's where we are headed and eventually people will see that, and I
just hope and pray it's not too late so enough people will put pressure
on their Members of Congress, and especially the Senate, to repeal
ObamaCare and get us true health care reform so that people can have
the health care that they want to have, they deserve to have. And for
those who are truly--and only those who are truly--chronically ill or
chronically poor and are not able to work or obtain affordable health
care, then those people, as a caring society, we would take care of.
But since ObamaCare cut $700 billion from Medicare, it's now
appearing to more and more seniors that this administration effectively
took money for treatment that they would get and provided that to
young, healthier people who probably could, or possibly have their
employer provide it if the employers were not being penalized for doing
so, but whose employers will likely give up that insurance, and we'll
see that as time goes on.
But nonetheless, seniors, although they were told by this
administration and told by some people across the aisle that they
wouldn't lose their doctor, well, many have already lost their doctor.
People were told, if you like your insurance, you can keep it; and
we've already found that's not true. So my heart breaks for people who
are going to need health care in the next few years and are simply not
going to be allowed to have it because the government will stand
between them and the health care they need.
I do recall seeing the President on video saying some years back that
he wanted single payer health care, the government taking over all
health care, but we couldn't get there in one step. As you examine
ObamaCare and you see it is ultimately going to bankrupt health
insurance companies, it is going to drive doctors out of the
profession, it is going to ultimately bring down the standard of care,
we see that it has now set up the whole system to fail so that down the
road the government will say, just as then Senator Obama said, we will
get to government-run health care because, gee, the greedy insurance
companies went bankrupt trying to be greedy and doctors got out of the
business, and now it looks like the government is going to have to take
it over, just like we hoped.
If there was ever any aspect of life that would ensure that the
Federal Government could dictate people's lives to them, it would be
health care. When the government controls all health care, the
government will control all people in this country because they will
make the decision basically who gets what treatment, when we get to
that point, and I'm hoping and praying we will repeal ObamaCare before
that happens. It's going to require a new Senate, obviously.
Well, another area that has had a lot of government intrusion has
been in the area of the First Amendment. So many people simply do not
understand and do not appreciate that the First Amendment does say,
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
So we've had so many areas in which the government has moved forward
to establish a nonreligion, has forced, like in the case of the major
who shot and killed 13 of our servicemembers at Fort Hood, he and his
Islamic faith were forced upon people who needed counseling about
having to go, Christians who had to go to the Middle East, to Iraq, to
Afghanistan, to serve their country. They had to get counseling from
someone who made very clear that his faith was everything, and his
faith in Islam so overwhelmed him that not only must it have affected
the advice he gave to Christians who were forced to see him, but it
also caused him to shoot and kill even those he had not wounded with
his words.
But there does seem to be a war on Christianity in this country.
Certainly, as the Founders anticipated, there should not be an
establishment of religion, but most important was that they not
prohibit the free exercise of religion.
When I was in the Army for 4 years, I had so many Christian friends.
I had friends that were not. But I had so many Christian friends, and
it seemed that especially around east Texas, where I grew up, so many
Christians, those that came from Christian backgrounds, also had
instilled not only a faith in God but also a love of country because of
just how blessed this country has been, and because they understood
that since most of the Founders had this Christian faith and over half,
about two-thirds were even ordained Christian ministers, the signers of
the Declaration of Independence, they wanted freedom of religion. So
you could be an atheist. You could be a Muslim. You could be a
Buddhist, whatever. You could believe in the power of crystals and
nothing else, whatever it was, because it was the Christian faith. If
it is truly Christian, then it provides everyone with the freedom of
choice, as God has given us.
There are other religions that do not give freedom of choice. And we
know, as the Islamic countries, where we're not allowed, even as
Members of Congress, to carry in a Bible or to talk about our faith at
all, they clearly prohibit the free exercise of religion. Even since
this country and so many thousands of Americans laid down their lives
to bring freedom to Afghanistan, this country gave Afghanistan a
constitution in which shari'a law was the law of the land, and the last
report I saw indicated that the last Jewish person had left Afghanistan
and the last Christian, public Christian church had closed. So there's
no freedom of religion there. There's no freedom of religion even in
allied nations like Saudi Arabia or even in Egypt, not complete freedom
of worship, even when Egypt was more of an ally than a country that
elected a Muslim Brotherhood member who wanted to see the great state
of America destroyed.
{time} 2050
This has been a country where anyone, any religious beliefs, would
have freedom of religion. But when we get away from the Judeo-Christian
faith, whose notions founded this country, then there is no protection
for all religions.
So it was interesting to see, especially, having been in the Army,
having had friends that made careers out of the military--so many that
started with me stayed in for a career--to see, last week, that and, as
this headline says, ``Pentagon Confirms May Court Martial Soldiers Who
Share Christian Faith.''
This May 1st article by Ken Klukowski said:
The Pentagon has released a statement saying that soldiers
could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: ``Religious
proselytization is not permitted within the Department of
Defense. Court martials and nonjudicial punishments are
decided on a case-by-case basis.''
The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart
News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees
meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey
[[Page H2426]]
Weinstein to develop court martial procedures to punish
Christians in the military who express or share their faith.
(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the
Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--
including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in
the military are guilty of ``treason'' and of committing an
act of ``spiritual rape'' as serious a crime as ``sexual
assault.'' He also asserted that Christians sharing their
faith in the military are ``enemies of the Constitution.'')
Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has
committed a crime under Federal military law. Punishment for
a court martial can include imprisonment and being
dishonorably discharged from the military.
So President Barack Obama's civilian appointees who lead
the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a
crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in
uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains--
military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith
(mostly Christian pastors or priests or Jewish rabbis)--whose
duty, since the founding of the U.S. military under George
Washington, is to teach their faith and minister to the
spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel,
instruction or comfort.
This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith
in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close
friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of
chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains, or
any servicemembers, for that matter, to say anything about
their faith that others say led them to think they were being
encouraged to make faith part of their life. It's difficult
to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual
counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in
that fashion.
World magazine has an article entitled ``Religious Battle Lines,''
posted May 2, 2013. And in that article by Edward Lee Pitts, it says:
In a provocative piece at The Huffington Post written
before his Pentagon visit, Weinstein, who served in the U.S.
Air Force said, ``We face incredibly well-funded gangs of
fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow
Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of
Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our Nation's
Armed Forces.''
After the meeting, a column appeared in The Washington
Post, largely sourced by Weinstein, which portrayed him as
heroically taking on and lecturing the Pentagon brass. That
piece in the newspaper's On Faith section opened by
suggesting that, while Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has
Pentagon budget concerns, ``there are much more serious
issues he must deal with. Religious proselytization and
sexual assault are at the top of the list.''
Well, if Secretary Hagel were talking about the type of
proselytization that has gone on among our military members that has
caused anyone to yell ``Allahu Akbar'' and then go about killing fellow
members of the service, then I would certainly understand why Secretary
Hagel would be concerned about that kind of proselytizing.
But for anyone to talk about sedition and treason and Christians
basically acting in an unconstitutional way by expressing or utilizing
their freedom of religion, for him to promote the prohibition of the
free exercise of religion, would be actually encouraging treason, and
it would be so very unconstitutional.
So it's quite interesting, when you find people who are educated
beyond their ability such that they could read the Constitution and not
understand the second clause that does not allow prohibition of the
free exercise of religion.
We got an explanation from DOD and the Air Force on what they really
meant after people started objecting to this. And the Air Force
statement said this:
When on duty, or in an official capacity, Air Force members
are free to express their personal religious beliefs as long
as it does not make others uncomfortable. Proselytizing
(inducing someone to convert to one's faith) goes over that
line. Leaders must avoid the actual or apparent use of their
position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their
subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any
religion.
As this matter from Fox News says:
Lieutenant Colonel Tingley's last sentence is troubling. An
Air Force officer was told he could no longer keep a Bible on
his desk because it ``may'' appear that he was condoning a
particular religion. Air Force officers must be allowed to
live out their faith in a way that is consistent with their
faith. If the Bible is important, then an Air Force officer
should be able to have one on his desk. Air Force officers
should be allowed to attend chapel, lead prayers, even speak
in chapel or lead Bible studies if it is consistent with
their faith. This statement does not help. What does ``as
long as it does not make others uncomfortable'' mean? Who
decides? How much of this policy did Mikey Weinstein
influence?
These are all good questions, because if the standard is that you may
be allowed to express your religious beliefs unless it makes someone
uncomfortable, then that is basically a prohibition of anybody's
freedom of religion, if they are a Christian.
Mr. Weinstein doesn't seem to be bothered. I haven't seen an
expression of concern about anybody yelling ``Allahu Akbar'' and
killing 13 other servicemembers as an expression of religion. He
doesn't seem to have found that treasonous or problematic. But some of
the rest of us do.
{time} 2100
So I hope that common sense and reason will win out, especially
considering the historic nature of our Constitution. And those who
parrot the words ``separation of church and state'' as if they are in
the Constitution I find don't often know that those are not in the
Constitution and are not aware that Thomas Jefferson coined that phrase
in a letter to the Danbury Baptists where he also coined the phrase,
``wall of separation.'' And this is a President who, it has been
confirmed by secular and even the Congressional Research folks, that
Jefferson most Sundays when he was here in Washington would normally
ride a horse down Pennsylvania Avenue and attend a nondenominational
Christian worship service here in the Capitol just down the Hall in
what we now call Statuary Hall but where they, back then, for most of
the 1800s, had a Christian worship service.
The first woman to address a group in the Capitol did so, a female
evangelist, a Christian evangelist spoke down the hall. The first
Catholic to address a group in the Capitol did so just down the Hall.
The first African American to address a group in the Capitol did so
down the hall. It is a very historic place just down the hall where
Church was held for most of the 1800s, a Christian, nondenominational
worship service. So it is rather historic. And it was a Christian
chapel to which George Washington went with all the other leaders after
he was sworn in in 1789 and went down the road there in New York from
the Federal building where he was sworn in to the chapel that was the
only building at ground zero that was completely unaffected by the
horrible fall of the World Trade Centers after they were attacked by
people filled with hatred, an evil people, radical Islamists, who
thought that in their religion, radical Islam, that they would find
virgins in paradise by killing thousands of innocent people. So,
hopefully, the military will take another look at this. I hope and pray
they will.
For most of this country's history, Members of Congress, even still
we have Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle who quote
Scripture from the Bible as a resource or a confirmation for a
particular bill or position that they are taking. Going back to our
very inception as a country, that was considered a wise thing and not a
treasonous thing as Mr. Weinstein, so unfamiliar with our history,
would attempt to have people believe.
It was the incredible Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Christian
minister, that sought to apply the teachings of Jesus and the
philosophy of Jesus through nonviolence to force the Constitution to be
interpreted to mean exactly what it said, and that is the kind of basis
from which there is legitimacy to treat all people equally. As
Jefferson made clear, if people do not realize that their liberty comes
from God, then they will not long keep that liberty. I think he said he
trembled at such a thought.
This Wednesday, we are going to have a hearing in the Oversight
Committee regarding what happened at Benghazi on 9/11 of last year. I
will be honored, humbled and honored, to escort the widow of Ty Woods,
one of the two former Navy SEALs who was killed when help did not come,
for whatever reason, whoever ordered help not to come in a timely
fashion, and this hearing will hopefully shed a little more light on
that.
An article from Breitbart came out 5 May, 2013, by John Sexton. He
says:
In an appearance on ``Face the Nation'' this morning,
Representative Darrell Issa revealed several new pieces of
information about the Obama administration's controversial
description of the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya,
casting doubt that
[[Page H2427]]
the White House mischaracterized its cause by mere accident.
``The talking points were right and then the talking points
were wrong,'' Issa explained in response to a question about
reporting at the Weekly Standard. The CIA and Greg Hicks, who
took over as Charge d'Affaires in Libya after the death of
Ambassador Chris Stevens, both knew immediately that it was
an attack, not a protest.
Hicks, who did not appear on the show but whose reactions
were featured based on transcripts of interviews with Issa's
committee, said he was stunned by what U.N. Ambassador Susan
Rice claimed on five different news shows on September 16.
When she appeared on ``Face the Nation,'' she followed an
interview with the President of Libya who claimed he had ``no
doubt'' it was a terror attack. Moments later, Ambassador
Rice contradicted him and claimed a spontaneous protest was
more likely.
Acting Ambassador Hicks watched the Sunday shows and said
he found this contradiction shocking. ``The net impact of
what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful
country in the world has basically said that the President of
Libya is either a liar or doesn't know what he is talking
about,'' he accused. Hicks added, ``My jaw hit the floor as I
watched this. I have never been as embarrassed in my life, in
my career as on that day.''
Hicks believes the stunning failure of diplomacy on the
Sunday news shows explains why it took the FBI 3 weeks to
gain access to the Benghazi site. The U.S. had effectively
humiliated the Libyan President on national TV. That
decision, he believed, probably compromised our ability to
investigate and track down those responsible.
According to Hicks, no one from the State Department
contacted him about what Ambassador Rice would be saying in
advance. The next morning he called Beth Jones, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs, and asked her why
Ambassador Rice had made the statements she had. Jones
responded, ``I don't know.''
A report published Friday by the Weekly Standard suggests
that State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland took issue
with the initial talking points and, with backing from the
White House, removed any evidence of al Qaeda involvement and
of prior attacks on Western targets in the region. According
to emails reviewed by the Weekly Standard, Nuland said her
superiors were concerned about criticism from Congress.
{time} 2110
You don't have to be trained in the Diplomatic Corps to understand
that if the President of Libya, where our consulate was attacked, said
this was not a protest, it was an attack by extremists, that since this
administration needed his administration's assistance in investigating
the matter, that they may have just alienated the President of Libya
and negated efforts to bring the people responsible to justice.
Of course there's no real explanation as to why it would take 8
months just to put up three pictures, as has been done, to try to
identify the perpetrators of what happened in Libya. Heck, when that
was done regarding the perpetrators in Boston, it wasn't months that it
took to identify those individuals; they precipitated bringing things
to a head rather quickly. Isn't it interesting that it's only after
tremendous congressional pressure to get to the bottom of what actually
happened at Benghazi so that we can try to avoid it for the future that
all of a sudden there is interest in actually trying to capture the
people responsible.
CBS News, May 6, by Sharyl Attkisson, has a headline of an article:
Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told ``you can't go'' to Benghazi during
attacks:
The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has
told congressional investigators that a team of Special
Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the
September 11, 2012, attacks was forbidden from doing so by
U.S. Special Operations Command South Africa.
This is just shocking to think that we had people armed, equipped,
able, as we know now if this is true, they should have been able to
save the lives of those two heroes--Ty Woods and Glen Doherty--and also
the State Department individual that had most of his right leg blown
off up there with them. They could have saved all of them if they had
been allowed to go protect the people who were sent there to serve by
this administration.
Another article, the Washington Times has a headline: ``U.S. could
have halted Benghazi attack with a flyover.'' This is according to a
diplomat. This article by Shaun Waterman, dated Monday, May 6, 2013,
says:
U.S. air power could have headed off at least part of last
year's terror attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, but
American officials never asked for overflight permission
because there were no airborne tankers available to refuel,
according to the House Oversight Committee's investigation.
Gregory N. Hicks, who became the chief of the U.S. mission
when Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed in the
attack, told House investigators Libya would have given the
U.S. permission to do the fly-over.
Democrats have accused the Republicans of running a ``one-
sided investigation.''
Mr. Hicks will testify on Capitol Hill this week along with
several others who will detail the conflicting stories the
Obama administration told in the days after the attack, which
left Stevens and three other Americans dead.
Mr. Hicks was deputy chief of mission at the embassy in
Tripoli when the U.S. post in Benghazi was attacked by
heavily armed extremists on September 11.
In interviews last month, Mr. Hicks told investigators with
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that an
overflight by a U.S. F15 or F16 might have prevented the
second phase of the attack.
After the diplomatic post was over-run and set ablaze that
night killing Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith,
the survivors took refuge in a nearby CIA building called the
annex. That building was in turn attacked at dawn on
September 12, when a mortar barrage killed former SEALs Glen
Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
``If we had gotten clearance from the Libyan military for
an American plane to fly over Libyan air space . . . if we
had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over
Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I
believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the
annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have
split,'' Hicks told House investigators.
Another article from Fox News, also dated May 6, 2013, is titled:
Clinton Sought End-Run Around Counterterrorism Bureau on Night of
Benghazi Attack, Witness Will Say at Hearing.
On the night of September 11, as the Obama administration
scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aid effectively
tried to cut the Department's own Counterterrorism Bureau out
of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a
``whistle-blower'' witness from that bureau who will soon
testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.
That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former marine and now the
deputy coordinator for operations in the agency's
Counterterrorism Bureau.
It goes on down, it says:
Fox News has also learned that another official from the
Counterterrorism Bureau--independently of Thompson--voiced
the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for
Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security
colleagues back in October.
Extremists linked to al Qaeda stormed the U.S. Consulate
and a nearby annex on September 11 in a heavily armed and
well-coordinated 8-hour assault that killed the U.S.
ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other
Americans.
Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account
was suppressed by the official investigative panel that
Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability
Review Board. Thompson's lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former
U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been
subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed
superiors at State, in advance of cooperation with Congress.
Down further it says:
``You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us
that night,'' the second official in State's Counterterrorism
Bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would
appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming
testimony.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the
counterterrorism officials' allegations ``100 percent
false.'' A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge
is not true.
It says:
Daniel Benjamin, who ran the Department's Counterterrorism
Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning
strongly denying the charges.
``I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty,
as the former Coordinator for Counterterrorism, that this
charge is simply untrue,'' he said. ``Though I was out of the
country on official travel at the time of the attack . . . ''
And it goes on. But that seems to be the way, when this
administration wants somebody to say, as he did, a charge is simply
untrue and to strongly deny charges, they seem to have to call on
somebody who had no firsthand information, which is why so many people
were questioning why Ambassador Susan Rice was called upon to make the
Sunday morning show round and constantly tell people that apparently it
was the result of a protest and was not al Qaeda related, when in fact
as people knew that night at the time of the attack, this was a
coordinated effort. There was no sign of protest.
So the way the administration appears to have operated is to have
people come forward who had no firsthand
[[Page H2428]]
information, give them their talking points, as Susan Rice was given--
an intelligent person. She's told by people apparently she trusts,
here's what you need to point out, here's what you need to know. And
then those people have plausible deniability of what the real facts are
because they've just been handed talking points.
So it is a very serious matter when we're trying to get to the truth
because it does matter. It makes the difference between whether or not
we learn from mistakes that were made and correct them for the future,
or whether we refuse to learn from history, refuse to learn from the
mistakes that were made so that we become, as the old saying says,
destined to repeat them.
{time} 2120
So it does matter, and it matters very much to Ty Woods' widow, who
will be here for the hearing. She does have interest because it does
matter to her.
What difference does it make? It will matter to the loved ones of
those who will die in the future if we don't get down to what actually
occurred, what mistakes were made so we can avoid them being made in
the future. It makes a lot of difference to those who don't want their
loved ones to die in the service of this country.
Now, there are also reports out there that, as I read already, that
there was a group of Special Forces who were ordered to stand down and
not go forward and help those at Benghazi. As the article from CBS News
points out, there may have been a Special Forces team that was ready to
go and then they were told you can't go. It is just incredible to think
that someone may have given such an order and not allowed the military
to go forward.
There are rumors afloat that people in the military, people in the
State Department, have been told not to talk to Members of Congress
about what happened at Benghazi. If there is anything to those
accounts, one thing that is often helpful is to go to the law itself.
18 USC, section 1505 is entitled, ``Obstruction of Proceedings Before
Departments, Agencies, and Committees,'' and, in part, says: ``Whoever
corruptly''--and I'm just reading what might be applicable if this were
ever to arise and someone ever were to instruct members of the military
or members of the State Department or any agency of the Federal
Government not to communicate with Members of Congress, this bears
noting.
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any
threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or
impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the
due and proper administration of the law under which any
pending proceeding is being had before any department or
agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise
of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or
investigation is being had by either House, or any committee
of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.
It goes on to say they'll be punished.
That's a rather serious matter, so hopefully nobody is out there
giving such instruction or has not been out there giving such
instructions, because when members of the military or the State
Department or intelligence departments or Justice Departments have
information and they have been asked to provide such information and
anyone instructs them in any way that may impede Congress' recovery of
such information, then they need to look at 18 USC.
Also, 18 USC, 371:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any
offense against the United States, or to defraud the United
States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any
purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect
the object of the conspiracy, each shall be--
And then it talks about their fine and imprisonment.
And then, of course, this under 18 USC, section 2:
Whoever commits an offense against the United States or
aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its
commission is punishable as a principal. Whoever willfully
causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him
or another would be an offense against the United States, is
punishable as a principal.
So, basically if somebody is encouraged not to be forthcoming or
honest with the Congress, you run into some issues there as well.
I hope people will take note of our laws, and hopefully there's no
truth to the rumors afloat that such instructions had been given
because, just as I was so greatly offended when the national security
letter system was abused and we had an inspector general report about
that, I didn't care that it was a Republican administration that was
abusing people's freedom and I spoke out.
And I hope that friends across the aisle, as this information
continues to be forthcoming about misrepresentations that were made
publicly by this administration, intentionally and knowingly, that
others, friends across the aisle, will stand up, as I did, about the
Bush administration, their Justice Department, and demand justice. I
demanded a resignation from the FBI Director back then. We have an
obligation, and it goes beyond party loyalty.
When people were killed who were sent to Libya to serve this
country--and we had two former SEALs who went and gave their lives to
try to save, and who did save, American lives--the least people
stateside can do, the least those who were reportedly told you can't go
help these people, the least they can do since they were not allowed,
according to the story, not allowed to go give Ty and Glen backup then,
I hope and pray they'll have the courage to give them backup now so
there will be no more Tys and Glens that will have to give their
lives in the future because inadequate security was provided and a
State Department was stumbling through relations in a tough situation
and then sent people forward with statements that those who sent that
person forward knew were not true, I hope that we'll have people, not
just those that are now coming before the committee on Wednesday, but
others, for the sake of Ty and Glen, Mr. Speaker, I hope people who are
in the service or former servicemembers that may have personal
information will give them the backup now that they're gone that they
would have wanted if that was them who gave their lives.
Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________