[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 5 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E41-E42]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


REINTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION TO CREATE A HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 
       TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE U.S. CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI, LIBYA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 18, 2013

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I have reintroduced my resolution to 
establish a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi 
to ensure a unified investigation of the attack and the Obama 
Administration's response. A select committee is essential to combine 
the myriad existing investigations into a single, comprehensive and 
exhaustive review. I believe such a combined effort will yield even 
more information regarding the true nature of these terrorist attacks 
and the administration's response.
  More than four months have passed since the terrorist attack on the 
U.S. consulate and annex that occurred during the late evening and 
early morning hours of September 11-12. The attack took the lives of 
four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador--the first ambassador to be 
killed in the line of duty since 1979. Yet the American people still 
have been told little about the timeline of this attack and the 
administration's response in the hours, days and weeks following. 
Consider that the American people still haven't been provided answers 
to the following serious questions:
  With the inexplicable release of suspect Ali Harzi by Tunisian 
authorities earlier this month, why are there no suspects in custody?
  Secretary Clinton, Secretary Panetta, Attorney General Holder and DNI 
Clapper still haven't testified before Congress--what steps did they 
take during the attack and in the days that followed?
  What were the President's activities during the seven-hour period of 
attack?
  Why wasn't the U.S. military deployed to assist? On the anniversary 
of the worst terrorist attack in American history, after multiple 
attacks this year on U.S. and Western interests, why were U.S. military 
units and assets in the region not ready, alert and positioned to 
respond? After all, two of the four people were killed seven hours 
after fighting began.
  Why do we still not have clear answers on the internal process that 
produced the inaccurate talking points on which Ambassador Rice relied 
several days after the attack?
  Why were the testimonies of the U.S. personnel who were evacuated 
from Benghazi on September 12--eyewitnesses who knew there never was a 
demonstration outside the Consulate--not immediately factored in to the 
judgments of our intelligence community?
  Why wasn't Secretary Clinton interviewed by the Pickering Commission?
  Was the White House aware of the FBI investigation of Gen. Petraeus? 
If not, why not?
  There are also serious questions about links of this terrorist attack 
to the protests at the U.S. embassies in Cairo, Egypt, Tunis, Tunisia 
and Sanaa, Yemen that same week--where each American compound was 
breached by individuals allegedly linked to al Qaeda-affiliated groups. 
What, if any, were the connections between these incidents and the 
attack in Benghazi?
  These questions are too serious--and the consequences too grave--to 
be brushed aside. There are critical legislative decisions the next 
Congress will have to make based on the answers of these questions. But 
more importantly, the American people deserve answers to these 
questions--including open hearings and an unclassified report.
  The select committee I am proposing should draw from the existing 
congressional investigations by including the chairman and ranking 
member of each committee of jurisdiction--Intelligence, Foreign 
Affairs, Judiciary, Armed Services, Homeland Security and Oversight and 
Government Reform--as well as five additional Republicans appointed by 
the Speaker and two additional Democrats appointed by the Minority 
Leader.
  I appreciate the support I have received for this resolution from the 
original cosponsors, as well as the Heritage Foundation. I also submit 
for the record a recent op-ed that was published on 
RealClearPolitics.com by former Senator Fred Thompson articulating the 
benefits of a unified select committee. Senator Thompson has a unique 
perspective on the need for this committee given his experience as 
counsel on the Senate select committee on Watergate.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the families of the victims, and the 
American people, to fully investigate this terrorist attack. I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution.

              [From RealClearPolitics.com, Nov. 28, 2012]

         Investigating Benghazi: Why We Need a Select Committee

                           (By Fred Thompson)

       As we fixate on the latest version of Gen. David Petraeus' 
     testimony or the misleading statements of Susan Rice, I 
     suggest that we stop and think about the size of what we are 
     dealing with. The Benghazi tragedy raises questions 
     concerning the protection of our embassies, the performance 
     and capabilities of our military and our intelligence 
     community, as well as the decisions of high-ranking officials 
     in the Department of Defense, the State Department, the White 
     House and possibly the Justice Department.
       The scope of the questions that involve an array of 
     officials, and sensitive agencies and departments of our 
     government, is unprecedented. The inquiry into what happened 
     and why, along with who is or should be accountable, calls 
     for a focused, responsible effort equal to the seriousness 
     and the complexities the issues.
       I've seen this rodeo before, both in a constructive manner 
     (Watergate, where I served as a counsel) and a less-than-
     constructive one (Clinton-era investigations, where I chaired 
     a committee that probed at least one facet of the various 
     scandals). On our present course, the prospects for a 
     relatively short but thorough, credible, bipartisan 
     congressional investigation are not good. The prospects for a 
     disjointed, drawn-out mess, replete with partisan bickering, 
     are much better.
       It is easy to identify at least eight congressional 
     committees (four in each chamber) with claims of jurisdiction 
     in the Benghazi matter. No committee has jurisdiction over 
     all of it, and several committees have jurisdiction over 
     parts that overlap with the jurisdictions of other 
     committees. Some of the committee hearings will involve 
     classified information and will be conducted behind closed 
     doors. Members of ``Committee A'' will not know what a 
     witness told ``Committee B'' in a closed hearing. Gen. 
     Petraeus' recent appearance on Capitol Hill demonstrates how 
     difficult it can be to get a consistent story when the 
     witness is making multiple appearances before even the same 
     committee.
       Perhaps not all committees with jurisdiction will have 
     hearings, but if half of them do it will produce competing 
     hearings, with competing staffs and competing press 
     conferences over much of Capitol Hill. It will also take 
     longer than necessary, as government officials shuffle back 
     and forth giving repeat performances. Different committee 
     chairmen and their committees will make different rulings on 
     document production, whether to move for immunity for 
     witnesses who refuse to testify on the basis of the 5th 
     Amendment, and a host of other matters.
       This is simply not the most efficient and credible way to 
     proceed. And it is less likely to arrive at the truth. The 
     seriousness of the matter calls for something better. It 
     calls for a select committee that is given a specific 
     mandate, a budget and a cut-off date that can be adjusted if 
     it is agreed upon. It needs to be comprised of members of 
     both parties who have been selected by their leadership 
     because of their proven integrity, reputation for fairness, 
     and expertise in a given area.
       In a matter fraught with political implications, it is 
     especially important that Congress accept its responsibility 
     and minimize partisanship as much as possible. History 
     demonstrates that this goal is much easier to achieve with a 
     handful of selected people than it is with many. Since 1789, 
     when Congress investigated a failed military expedition, 
     select committees have been utilized to serve such important 
     and sensitive functions, and the Benghazi matter should 
     follow in that long tradition, whether by means of a joint 
     committee of both houses of Congress or by either chamber.
       Most select committees have become historical footnotes. 
     Some, however, are well remembered because of the 
     contribution they made to helping Congress carry out its 
     duties of legislating, overseeing the executive branch and 
     educating the American people as to the operation of their 
     government. Ironically, it is because of the success of these 
     panels that some members of Congress and others oppose the 
     formation of one in this case.
       They say that forming a select committee for a matter such 
     as Benghazi, where a consulate and four American lives were 
     lost, would attach too much importance to the investigation. 
     They fear that it would be equating it with Watergate. Of 
     course, if the Watergate standard, as they define it, is now 
     the operative standard for the formation of a select 
     committee, then seldom, if ever, will another select 
     committee be formed.
       Critics of the select committee miss the point on several 
     levels. First of all, if indeed a comparison is to be made, 
     one must look at the seriousness of facts and issues 
     presented concerning Benghazi and compare them with the 
     seriousness of facts and issues presented at the times when 
     other select committees, such as Watergate, were formed. So 
     compare the Watergate burglary with what we have here. Can 
     there be any doubt that Benghazi passes the Watergate test?
       The wisdom of utilizing a select committee should not just 
     be judged on the outcome of the committee's work; dramatic 
     results are not always achieved or warranted. The select 
     Watergate Committee is a beneficial reference point, not 
     because of the end result of its investigation a year and a 
     half after it was formed, but because of the process Congress 
     utilized to deal with a difficult situation.
       At that time, we had a Republican president and a Congress 
     controlled by the Democrats. Yet the Senate voted unanimously 
     to form the committee. Democratic leadership appointed Sen. 
     Sam Ervin, reputed to be the chamber's leading constitutional 
     scholar, to chair the committee. The Republican leader 
     appointed Sen. Howard Baker to be the vice

[[Page E42]]

     chairman and leading member of his party on the committee--a 
     senator who was respected on both sides of the aisle. These 
     men protected the legitimate partisan interests of their 
     respective parties and the path was not always smooth, 
     especially behind closed doors, but they understood that 
     their colleagues, as well as the nation, were depending upon 
     them to be responsible and seek the truth. Authority and 
     accountability were clearly placed on the committee, and its 
     members performed accordingly.
       Select committees are not perfect creations by any means. A 
     clear narrative is often difficult to produce under any 
     circumstances. However, a select committee is simply much 
     more likely to produce focused and credible results. Soon we 
     will see if the United States Congress is still capable of 
     coming together toward the common goal of getting to the 
     bottom of a very serious matter. Or, are decisions about 
     select committees simply reflective of positions based upon 
     whose ox is in danger of being gored?

                          ____________________