Scott Perry

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. I did.

Mr. PERRY. Again, we want to know who changed the talking points. I don't want to indict her if she was given the talking points. But at the level she was operating, she either should have known or corroborated the talking points. And so, to a certain extent, I think she's culpable, and it's reasonable to expect that she did know the talking points were changed and she was misleading the public.

Mr. PERRY. Since the Ambassador himself and his deputy both reported it was a real-time, coordinated attack, not a spontaneous demonstration, I'm very certain in my heart and my mind that the administration knew what was happening.

Mr. PERRY. There's no doubt in America's mind, the world's mind. Libyan intelligence knew it within 24 hours. And we have the fact that our Ambassador, which--by the way, I must say that it besmirches her credibility, the President's credibility, the administration's credibility, including the recent activities regarding Syrian foreign policy and decisionmaking, to go out for weeks on end, including the President, and issue talking points that they clearly knew were false. They knew they were false, and the world knows they're false now. Most of the world knew they were false then. This was not a spontaneous eruption of violence, including RPGs and a coordinated attack. Coordinating the attack requires planning. It requires resourcing. That didn't happen in a few moment's time over a video, which maybe that gentleman is still in prison to this day. The only person held accountable for this, I think, is arguably somebody who had absolutely nothing to do with this.

Mr. PERRY. Well, in the interest of national security, you're in a dilemma. You've taken an oath and you do have a confidentiality requirement. However, I would also say there is a compelling reason for you to provide information to the American people and certainly to the Congress. I know that the Foreign Affairs Committee has set up hearings with some of these folks and they have said they were coming, and then, miraculously and mysteriously, they declined between the time they said they were coming and the time they were supposed to appear. And so we're not sure why they would agree to it at the onset and then decide to change their mind hence. I think it's a very compelling question. But I think in the interest of finding out the truth, they would be compelled to testify under oath.

Mr. PERRY. That's exactly right.

Mr. PERRY. Sure. The whole world saw that, and rightly so.

Mr. PERRY. We have no knowledge of anything in the Situation Room in the White House.

Mr. PERRY. Well, I certainly haven't seen anything that I have confidence in. There's been numerous ones put together, mostly by the side that wants to investigate, that's trying to piece it together based on open-source information.

Mr. PERRY. I do not.

Mr. PERRY. I have not seen the list.

Mr. PERRY. Thank you for yielding, and I want to begin by thanking our colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his leadership with House Resolution 36. It should not have to come to a select and special committee to investigate this, but it's very apparent that the administration operating on point on this is doing everything they can and expending all resources to obfuscate, stonewall, and keep the truth and the facts from the American people. And so, while we appreciate the fact that there are numerous committees in the House investigating this simultaneously, but individually, one concerted effort is probably what it's going to take, at the end of the day, to answer the call of this administration who would rather this information not be let out to the American people. I just want to start out by saying that, you know, a year ago, a year ago on this day, Americans were waking up to or hearing about on their lunch hour that the first Ambassador in over 30 years, a United States Ambassador, had been killed on foreign shores. And as a person who's operated in the military and as just a citizen who thinks that, look, some of this would make common sense, on the anniversary date of such a historic event and shameful event in America, that we would increase our security posture, especially overseas. And as a person who has served overseas during 9/11, the anniversary of 9/11, I know very well that we did increase our security posture. So the fact that this happened really leads to questions as to what the heck was going on at the State Department regarding the security in Benghazi and who was making decisions. It's disgraceful that an entire year later, despite the fact that a number of terrorists have been identified who have participated in this attack, not one of them has been brought to justice, not one. And it's also interesting that this administration has the information, the intelligence information that it has regarding Syria. Yet while we were in Benghazi, while we had boots on the ground in Libya, a year later we don't seem to have the facts about the intelligence that occurred there. Some questions that I have--it's my understanding that Under Secretary Kennedy will be testifying in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee on which I serve next week, and we have some questions for him. I think the American people want to know why this administration politicized national security during an election cycle regarding the talking points, and who made that order. Who decided that? Who was at the top of that? The reduction in security forces, again, on 9/11, it's my understanding, with an outpost like Benghazi, that it could only have come from one person. There's only one person in the State Department that is authorized to issue that reduction in security posture, and that is the Secretary. We want to know whose signature is on the authorization. We want to know who authorized not sending help. In the military, we don't have a stand down order. But somebody said, no, and somebody didn't contingency plan. Somebody wasn't prepared. Now, the boots on the ground, the fine soldiers, the airmen, the men and women who would have gone into help, they were ready to go. The United States military was ready to respond. It's the chain of command that wasn't, somewhere along the line. And we want to know who made that decision. We don't know yet what the Ambassador was doing there. Do we really know? We've asked the question, but we don't know what his purpose was. Sure, we hear that he was there to solidify that location as an operations point for diplomatic actions and show that everything was normal in Libya again. But on 9/11 you're really going to send him there with a reduced security posture? Folks, ladies and gentlemen, these Ambassadors don't roll in a car by themselves out to these outposts. They don't even go to their consulates by themselves. They have a security detachment of highly trained people. The vehicles they ride in are not something that you buy on the lot. These guys are loaded up, and they're ready to handle contingencies. This is abnormal. What was he doing there? Why does this administration continue to stonewall? You're hearing that they're giving us everything that we ask for, the emails and so on and so forth. Why is it that the emails come in a box, to a SCIF, a secure location, our people in the Congress, we're allowed to look at them, our investigators are allowed to look at them, transcribe information, and then the emails go back into the box under armed guard and they're taken away. We're not allowed to copy them. We're not allowed to get them all at one time. They're meted out to us. Why is that? If there's nothing to hide, why not have the information so we can all know what it is within the confines of security postures and operational security and security clearances? Finally, or maybe not finally, who's accountable? Has anybody been held accountable? Sure, there were some four employees at the State Department that were excused from their duty for a year, or nearly a year, with pay, and then brought back in. And this is not to disparage those employees. It's my understanding, since we haven't talked to any of them yet because we've been disallowed to talk to them, that they didn't even know they were held responsible until the day it happened, and they still haven't seen the report that says they were responsible for the reduced security posture. Nobody's been held accountable. Why wasn't the Secretary involved in the questioning of the ARB, the Accountability Review Board? The person at the top, not even questioned. That's like having a murder investigation in a family where the husband was having an affair and having strained relations with his wife, the wife was murdered, and he was the only one in town at the time, and not questioning that. That's what that's like. Nobody questioned the Secretary. Really? Was there real-time video information via drone, unarmed aerial vehicle? We heard originally--I was in the questioning, in the hearing with the Secretary, Secretary Clinton, when she originally came earlier this spring, and she said that there was no real-time information. Yet, on national radio, I heard a guy call into national radio who was the payload operator. And to be clear, the payload operator is not the individual flying the unarmed aerial vehicle. The payload operator is the individual that handles the camera or the weapons system. So the individual handling the camera called into a national talk show and described what he was seeing as it was occurring. So if we had the real-time information, why weren't we acting on it? Where is that real-time information? Why haven't we seen it? Finally, where was the President during this? I mean, this is a crisis of national proportion and national security. And I know the President hasn't come before Congress to ask a question, and every time we ask anybody else the question, the answer's going to be, well, I don't know. I don't keep the President's schedule. Why can't the American people know the facts? We just want the truth. We just want the facts. The facts will lead us to the truth. We're not on a witch hunt. The American people deserve to know. The families of the fallen, they deserve to know what happened here. And I know the administration is hoping that time will go by, debt ceiling, continuing resolution, ObamaCare, Syria, anything will get in the way of finding out what happened here. But we are duty-bound, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Speaker, we are duty-bound to find out this information on behalf of the American people. I applaud you, Mr. King. Thank you for yielding the time.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I remember the morning of September 11, 2001, like it was just yesterday. The horror affected everyone in different ways, and each of us remember where we were and whom we were with on that fateful day. I remember trying to get home from work. I remember turning on the TV. I remember the second plane hitting the second tower. And I remember my rage. While America has begun to heal from the wounds of those cowardly and terrifying acts over the last decade, the scars remain. With each passing year, this anniversary serves as a moment for reflection and a time to remember the brave and selfless acts of our first responders and the ordinary citizens who committed extraordinary acts of heroism. Most importantly, we will never forget the thousands of innocent people who died in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. So today, I join my fellow Americans in prayer in remembrance of those who lost their lives on that fateful day. I also will pause to remember the selfless men and women at home and abroad defending our freedoms and liberties to prevent such a horrific day ever again from occurring. Today--and always--Americans will not forget.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the York Emporium as it hosts its fourth annual Pennsylvania Cigar Box Guitar Festival in York Pennsylvania. The cigar box guitar is a traditional American instrument, with roots funning through the Civil War, the Great Depression, and the Panic of 1983. It harkens back to a time when folks would make-do with musical instruments they had constructed with their own hands, using found objects. The annual Pennsylvania Cigar Box Guitar Festival, now in its 4th year, celebrates this homegrown musical style and the ingenuity of its musicians with the largest music festival of its kind. It features performers from Illinois, Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, upstate New York and Pennsylvania. The festival brings tourists from throughout New England, the Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states. In recent years, the festival has even seen the arrival of international visitors. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues in recognizing the uniquely American attributes that this festival celebrates.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, we've had a continuing debate about American energy independence. One way for America to achieve real energy independence is to utilize our own renewable and clean energy resources. Currently, there are over 800 dams across the Nation waiting to generate power. The dams are already sitting there, sitting on our Nation's rivers all across the country, waiting to generate power, just waiting. From Sacramento to Savannah and right on the Susquehanna River where I live, the power and the consistency of the water flow on these rivers is truly impressive and, as I said, consistent. The energy created from this immense water flow is something that America should harness for the use of individual and commercial power. In that vein, this amendment would increase the water power energy program by $31 million. Again, this applies only to the water power energy program. The Water Power Program is a vitally important program to reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil or fossil fuels for many folks on the other side of aisle and the administration who seem desperately opposed to it. It will allow us to become a more energy independent Nation and do so in an environmentally sound manner. While you sleep, while you work, while you drive, while you talk to your family and watch TV, the rivers are flowing, the tides are moving in and out; power can be generated without any more than that. It doesn't take us digging anything up, dumping anything in, dredging anything up. It just happens. The water power program is designed to develop water technologies and address barriers to hydropower, barriers like the permitting process that we currently undergo in this Nation which takes companies that want to do this 10 years, minimum, 10 to 15 years to receive a permit. Who invests in something that takes that long, that kind of money? The problem is that increasingly no one does. So what's right under our feet, what's going right past us in our homes, our towns, our rivers, is not being utilized, and it's right there. Eight hundred dams currently in this Nation could be generating power at this moment. Hydropower is available in every region of the country and is America's largest source of clean, renewable electricity. It accounts for 67 percent of domestic renewable generation and 7 percent of total electricity generation. And it creates good-paying jobs. I mean from the bottom to the top, everyplace on the spectrum of job creation, hydropower creates work for people. It's reliable, proven, and domestic technology that can expand in environmentally responsible ways. It can be put to work in rivers, harbors, and coastal areas to capture energy from currents and tides. Harnessing this energy will create a truly renewable and green source of energy. I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for the work they have done to bring this bill to the floor, and I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 318, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I speak today of the forthcoming sesquicentennial recognizing three bloody days that will forever remain emblazoned on our hearts. The battle of Gettysburg was a pivotal turning point in the American Civil War, one of the single most defining moments in American history and one that united the Nation and restored peace and prosperity to our great land. Therefore, be it known as we recollect and observe the horrific and critical events that took place in July 1863 that the memory of these brave souls who sacrificed their lives is kept alive through the tireless efforts of the National Park Service and the work of countless organizations. The Sons of the Union Veterans of the Civil War, Allied Orders of the Grand Army of the Republic, the Military Order of the Loyal Legions of the United States, along with the Sons of Confederate Veterans, United Daughters of the Confederacy and other Confederate heritage organizations honor all of the brave warriors lost on the fields of Gettysburg. These organizations work together tirelessly to preserve the hallowed ground upon which these Americans--our brothers and sisters--fought, bled, and perished. For as long as there is breath in our chests and light in our eyes, we the people of these United States shall keep alive the memory of our ancestors and maintain the peace paid for with their sacrifice during the merciless 4 years of our Nation's history.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. I would like to start out by thanking the gentleladies from Indiana and, of course, from Hawaii for this very significant and impactful legislation. It is particularly a privilege to speak in favor of this knowing that Ms. Gabbard is from Hawaii and, today, currently serves as a comrade in arms just like me. The TSA started an expedited free screening program in 2011 called PreCheck, but just recently expanded the program to include Active Duty members of the military and most recently, just this March, to severely injured members of the military. As a matter of fact, there is a Member of this House who was severely injured, and I served right along with her soldiers. I flew with those soldiers in Iraq myself. Many of these injured soldiers and servicemembers want to continue to serve. They want to--that's their calling in life--but they cannot for their own good and for the good of the mission, but their hearts are in the right place. So while it's great that the TSA has recognized severely injured members of the military in that regard, what about these veterans who want to serve but cannot continue to serve? This bill rightfully extends similar benefits to severely injured or disabled veterans and members of the Armed Forces. Increased and more stringent security is understandable in the wake of 9/11, and it's kind of a bitter irony that many of these members who have been severely injured joined just because of those events. Now how ironic is it that they are caught up in this web of security for the injuries they received because they answered the call of their country? Servicemembers I know don't ask for special recognition or any recognition for being soldiers or servicemembers and certainly not for the injuries they have received as a result of their service. So I stand in very strong support of this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, in 2010, this body was told by Speaker Pelosi that it needed to pass the bill so the American people could know what's in it. Well, Madam Speaker, if the American people would have known of the toxic consequences that ObamaCare would have, I'm certain they would not have allowed this legislation to be passed. I rise today to expose some of the ramifications that ObamaCare will have on Americans when it is fully implemented in 2014. In my home State of Pennsylvania, premium rates in the individual market will increase by approximately 30 percent, and on a national level there will be a 73 percent rise in premium costs for those keeping insurance. For those interested in getting a new plan, you're going to see an average increase of 100 percent in cost compared to today. Due to the employer mandate, as many as 20 million to 65 million Americans will likely lose their employer-sponsored health care. Well, Madam Speaker, it's 3 years later, and we still don't know everything in this legislation, but we do know who's picking up the tab: hardworking families and job-creating small business owners.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PERRY

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, do we live in a banana republic? Are we living under a tin horn dictatorship? I mean, just this evening the IRS Acting Chief Steve Miller resigned. I suppose that's damage control, that's how we're going to fix this--you know, heads are going to roll. Just recently, Mr. Miller wrote to Members of Congress at least twice to explain the process of reviewing applications for tax exempt status without disclosing that Tea Party groups had been targeted. So it's nothing new. As a matter of fact, in July of last year he testified before the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee and didn't mention it, he didn't mention the additional scrutiny. I'm sure it must have slipped his mind. Oh, that's right, it couldn't have slipped his mind because he was asked about it specifically. Now we're supposed to trust these answers that are forthcoming at this time and are continuing to be revised. But initially--and falsely--they claimed that the practice of flagging conservative groups for additional scrutiny was contained to low-level staffers at a Cincinnati office. First we heard it was a couple hundred, or 75, and then 200, and now it's like 500. I mean, how much do we trust someone that continues to change their story? And if it was low-level folks at the agency, how come the guy at the top just resigned? I mean, I understand that the buck stops there, but does the buck stop there--or should it stop there? According to the report by the Inspector General, they knew about the problem by June 2011. I mean, they knew about it. They're testifying in front of Members of Congress and misleading Members of Congress. Forget Members of Congress, what about the American people? What about the people in these organizations, God-fearing, tax-paying Americans that were targeted, what about them? According to the IG report, the IRS was not only targeting Tea Party organizations; it was going after groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to make America a better place to live. Really? I mean, maybe I'm being targeted because I'm looking through that list and I think those are things I stand for. I think those are things that most of my constituents stand for. It also started targeting groups criticizing the government or educating Americans about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Since when is it a problem to criticize your government? I mean, isn't that one of the fundamental things that this Nation was founded on? And now we're going to have the IRS come after us. And is it bad that we educate Americans about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Is that a bad thing? Apparently--according to the IRS--it is. The use of the IRS to target political opponents of an administration is one of the greatest dangers of the tremendous power of this Federal agency. I mean, I asked, are we living in a banana republic? Is this a tin horn dictatorship, because certainly this can't happen in America. These are things that happen in these other small rogue nations where there are political dissidents that come to America to escape persecution. So what's next for us in America? If it starts here, does it end with then us going to jail as political dissenters against some ideals that the administration currently in power has? I'm going to read an excerpt of the Federal law, 26 U.S. Code 7217. It prohibits any employee of the Executive Office of the President and Vice President, as well as Cabinet Secretaries, from requesting, directly or indirectly, that the IRS investigate any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer. It is important for the rule of law and the interest of justice that the Congress aggressively pursue its oversight function to get to the bottom of the scandal. We don't want to just get to the bottom of the scandal so we can make sure it never happens again. I mean, that's what we so often hear. We need to find out who instigated it and who authorized it, because it is very hard for us to believe that these were just some low-level employees that, you know, took it upon themselves. And I must ask everybody, what is their impetus? What is their motivation to do that? What low-level employee would take it upon him or herself to say, well, we're going to start investigating Tea Party groups and groups with the name ``patriot'' in their organization. What's in it for them? And I suspect you're having a hard time coming up with the answer, just as I am. How long has this been going on? Well, apparently it started in February of 2010, and it lasted for about 27 months. The last appeal that was approved was in Champaign, Illinois, in February of 2010. So if you think back to February, what was happening in February of 2010? Well, first of all, if you own an iPad right now, you couldn't get one in February of 2010 because there were none available; it wasn't on the market. If you remember back then, there was a volcano over Iceland that was stopping air travel to Europe. There was the Freshwater Horizon that blew up in the gulf, killing many workers and destroying the environment or contaminating the environment in the gulf. That's how long ago this has happened. That's how long this has been going on. And that's how long people in this administration knew about it and said nothing. You know, I don't know what this means for Tea Party organizations and patriot groups and the like. I mean, if I quote Julian Bond, the former head of the NAACP, he calls the Tea Party the Taliban of American politics. I would suggest to you that they're exactly opposite that, and the actions of the administration are more keeping with Taliban-like tactics. I mean, these folks are continually ridiculed for being, oh, opposed to government intrusion in their lives, and worrying about conspiracies, and what kind of personal things about them the government is looking into and what they're doing with it. And it's all very conspiratorial, and they're seen as kind of kookie whack jobs. Apparently they're right. Who knew? During this same period of time, interestingly, a director in the IRS fast-tracked an application for the President's half-brother. That took 1 month. It took 1 month. Meanwhile, 27 months went by where organizations with the name ``Tea Party'' or ``patriot'' couldn't receive the same consideration. Did front-line employees do this? Again, I've got to question that. It just doesn't add up. Again, day by day we hear more and more. I mean, the first thing that came out recently was that rogue employees did this--and at one point only one employee. Really? One employee out of 106,000 that work at the IRS, that's what we're supposed to believe? Are we supposed to change our trust level and our belief level every day as new reports come out with new information that countervails the information of the day before? I mean, we've got to ask--the government asks its citizens all kinds of information, whether you're a farmer and the Agriculture Department forces you to do a survey, complete a survey under penalty of law. And folks call up their Congressman. They call me up in the district office and they say: Why must I fill this out? Why do they need all this information? What is this relevant information? That's the Ag Department census. And maybe it's fair; maybe it's not. I take issue with it. But in this case, I really take issue with it because in this application and in their findings, the IRS findings, they looked at what books Members were reading. Are we going to have a book burning next? They looked at Facebook posts, resumes of officers, minutes of meetings since the organizations' inceptions. And I ask you, what does any of that have to do with your tax status? Or does it have to do with something else? Does it have to do with your political status and who you may disagree with? Thirty-one organizations' information was released to organizations like ProPublica--31 organizations. Maybe that's the beginning of that, and maybe we don't know the extent of how many other organizations were leaked this information. What did they do with it? Did they maybe use it to target candidates in political elections to make sure that they lost because they disagreed with their ideology? We understand that we oftentimes disagree on ideology on policy, but we expect a fair and level playing field, and we certainly expect the government to provide that. That's the government's role. That's one of the government's core missions. In this case, obviously, the government was working for one team and decidedly against the other team. What does that mean to all Americans? Some applications were under review at the IRS for 3 years, yet you could sue the IRS after 270 days for inaction. For 3 years these things went dormant. So who's responsible? We have had a host of scandals in this town from time immemorial. This administration is really at some point no different than the next, but on one point I think it has been so far: nobody is ever responsible. People take responsibility, but there's no accountability, and no heads really roll. Nothing happens to anyone. Finally, there is a firing here and we're not sure this guy had anything to do with it. But I would ask you this: The President says that he finds out this information that you find out in the public on the same day you find it out. Mr. Speaker, that seems odd to me. He's the President. He's the leader of the country. We know that he can't know every little thing in every agency. He can't know that, and we don't expect him to know that. That is why he hires top people, smart people to run those organizations for him. But he is the leader of the country, and when this is going on for a couple of years and they know about it, shouldn't we be concerned that he doesn't know anything about it? I mean, is that a failure of leadership? I think that's a great question. And I think that it is bad that our President says that he doesn't know, and that he truly doesn't know. I don't see that as a good thing. Mr. Speaker, the American public increasingly has a trust issue with this administration, which is now in damage control, and we understand that they have to be. But, Mr. Speaker, while they are in damage control, is the people's business, the legitimate people's business being conducted right now? Where is their focus? Where was their focus on these issues when they could have been stopped or averted, and where is it now and what is the cost of that? And I would also say to you this: as a person who has lead organizations myself, at the top is where the culture starts. The person at the top, he or she determines the culture of that whole organization. The people within that organization survive or do not survive by going along and learning to fit in with that culture. If everything below that starts eroding, you can only, at some point, look towards the top. I would submit to you under the current scenario of the last week's events that we might really be seeing the advent of the evidence of a culture of corruption that has been going on for more than just a few days. Let's just go through a couple of them. I know you know it is coming. It started with Fast and Furious, and I can tell you that I don't feel like I've gotten the answers. I don't think the American people have gotten the answers that they have been looking for. I certainly don't think that justice has been served for those folks and, in particular, the one agent on the border who lost his life over that. And, of course, there's Benghazi, which information continues to come out even as we speak, including emails today that show that the State Department and the White House changed the intelligence talking points. Changed them why? Why change them? Why not tell the American people what happened, especially when apparently you know what happened? Is it because it shouldn't have happened and it didn't have to happen, but there was inaction when something could have changed? We heard that, well, we couldn't get folks there in time. We can do a lot of things in this town, but one thing I haven't seen anybody be able to do is to predict the future. I don't know who in the White House or who in the Department of State predicted that the attack would only last so long. Years ago, when I was a little kid, I watched hostages in Iran being taken, and that lasted for well over a year, 470-some days or something like that. How did we know, how did the Department of State, how did the White House know that this wasn't going to be the same scenario and these folks weren't going to be held captive for years and years and the United States held hostage? They just assumed whatever they assumed, I guess. It is just interesting. We don't know the President's whereabouts during that period of time. I don't know if we will ever know. But it is interesting that there is no culpability, there is no accountability. Folks at the State Department, we were told, well, there were some low-level folks that were responsible for the security misfortune and missteps at the consulate and they have been reassigned. Four people are dead. Families don't know why their children died-- their brothers, their sisters, their husbands, their fathers--they don't know to what end, and they still don't know. If we left it up to this administration, who keeps on stonewalling and just metering out the information only as fast as we can pull it out of them, they may never know. Is it embarrassing? Americans are forgiving. If a mistake was made in good faith, a mistake was made. We are all human. But was a mistake made in good faith or was a mistake made--scratch that. Was it a precalculated decision for political purposes? And, if it was, that is, indeed, reprehensible. I'm sure that is, indeed, embarrassing and there will be a cost to that. So maybe that is the motivation we don't know. And then there is the Justice Department wiretaps at the AP. The Attorney General recused himself. He recused himself. He recused himself of what? I'm not sure the timeline there. Does that mean he knew that the Justice Department was going to tap the AP, one of the largest wire services in the world? Did he know and say, well, there is an investigation going on so I'm going to stay out of it and he left it to his deputy? We don't know what to trust, but I can tell you this. According to the Department of Justice, their media subpoena requirement is: The approval of the Attorney General is required before a government attorney can issue a subpoena to a member of the news media. That is not my words. That comes right from 28 CFR 50.10. Fifty-two major media organizations have spoken out against this. This is not a liberal/conservative thing. This is a freedom of the press. This is an issue that crosses all lines. The press Shield Act has been introduced in the Senate. It was introduced a couple of years ago when Democrats held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Now it is being reintroduced and retouted. Oh, really? If it was so important--if it is so important now, why didn't you pass it then? Why did you wait until now to reintroduce it and make a big deal of it? I would suggest to you that that is more damage control. It is more political gamesmanship and trying to just smooth over a bad situation. The Justice Department wiretaps at the AP led right to this House gallery. And I wonder about jurisdictional issues. Doesn't the Executive Office have a separation of powers duty? Can the Executive Office wiretap the House of Representatives? And what about the Senate? Isn't it curious that the House of Representatives is controlled by the majority party, which is Republicans, so the wiretaps come here, but they don't go to the Senate, where arguably most of the reporters hang out because that is where things are really happening most of the day, but no wiretaps there? I guess it is just a coincidence, Mr. Speaker. Let's move on. Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius out soliciting funds to pay for ObamaCare. Is that appropriate or is that not a little scandalous? Is she shaking them down? Are we just now waiting for the next shoe to drop on that and to get some information about that? There's another one waiting in the wings as we speak, the EPA. Fees for FOIA requests. Freedom of Information Act requests are normally waived for philanthropic and public policy-oriented organizations. And, of course, they were waived for 92 percent of green groups friendly with the EPA. Interestingly, during the same period of time, the fees were universally applied to conservative groups. Mr. Speaker, we have a trust issue. We've had a trust issue in the House of Representatives with the administration for some time, and the American people are starting to realize that they, too, have a trust issue. It is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because, at a time when Congress is, generally speaking, still pretty close to an all-time low in approval rating, what we need is uplifting things from the most transparent organization in history to make sure that the American people know that they can trust their government even though they don't always agree. Sometimes they disagree with policy, but if it's out front--if you give somebody your rationale, if you tell him this is why I think we should do what we should do--a citizen says, I don't agree, but you're our leader, so go ahead. We don't lie to the American people. We don't hide things from the American people. We don't watch Americans die and do nothing about it and then lie about it after the fact. We don't mislead Congress. Mr. Speaker, it's the most critical time during these times for the administration to fully come clean on everything. Be up front on everything. Don't parse the information, because all that will serve to do is to erode the trust of the American people further day by day, not only in the administration, but in the halls of all of government institutions from the top to the bottom. We as Americans are right to be cynical of our government. We are right to, and we have a right to be cynical. It's not a bad thing. We have the right to question, and we should question--that's how answers come--but we shouldn't have to question the trust. Questioning motives, questioning policies, those are apt things, but not wondering why the government is collecting information to give to the IRS. Why would you give it to the IRS? Why did the IRS need that information? Was it to get more taxes? Why do they need to know what books you're reading? The IRS can put people in jail, folks. Are we looking towards a time when we put people in jail for reading the wrong books? for thinking the wrong things? for opposing the ruling powers? That is something for another world. That is something from another world, another country. This is America. These things do not happen here. These things should not happen here. Yet these things, apparently and sadly, have happened here. It is time for the administration to lay everything on the table so that we know where we stand, so that we can get past this and get back to the business of governance. We have slow economic growth. People are struggling. People have lost their jobs. People will continue to lose their jobs. Bills are going up, and paychecks are going down. That's what we need to be focusing on. We are held hostage by foreign governments who own our debt. We are held hostage by foreign governments who hold energy supplies while we're standing right on top of them in America. Those are the policies we need to be discussing, not whether our government misled us about Benghazi; whether they misled us about wiretaps; whether they misled us about Fast and Furious; whether they misled us about Health and Human Services and what they're doing with shaking down companies for money for ObamaCare; whether they're going to mislead us about the EPA and fees charged to certain organizations only; and certainly, the IRS' targeting of certain individuals for what they think and what they say. There is no place for that in America. We need to get back to the people's business, and we need to do it right fast. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.