[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[House]
[Page H5180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TENTH UNANSWERED BENGHAZI QUESTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 weeks, I raised a series of
questions focusing on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, as
well as Washington's response, or lack thereof.
To date, little is known why Ambassador Stevens was in the U.S.
consulate in the days leading up to the anniversary of 9/11. Even less
known is about the other American facility in Benghazi: the CIA annex.
When was the annex established? How many people worked at the annex? Of
these, how many were direct agency employees and how many were
contractors? What was the ratio of CIA staff to security contractors?
Why was there a facility operated by the CIA in Benghazi? Perhaps it
was established to assist in U.S. efforts to secure weapons in the wake
of the Libyan revolution.
As early as 2011, National Journal reported:
The U.S. is also planning to ramp up spending to help
Libya's interim government secure and destroy the shoulder-
fired surface-to-air missiles and weapons looted from
Qadhafi's stockpiles. A senior State Department official said
Clinton will tell Libyan leaders that the U.S. contribution
to these efforts will go up to $40 million.
The same article noted:
The U.S. has already spent nearly $6 million on its
conventional weapons disposal efforts, sending a quick
reaction force of weapons experts to Libya by October 2011.
If, indeed, the facility in Benghazi was involved in the collection
of these weapons, where are they? The $40 million promised by Secretary
Clinton would buy a very large quantity of weapons. Were they shipped
out of Benghazi? Are they in warehouses on U.S. soil? Are they in other
allied countries? Or did they end up elsewhere?
There has been speculation that some of these weapons may have ended
up in Syria.
It is particularly noteworthy that during the same time period that
the U.S. engaged in collecting weapons in Libya, respected national
security reporter Mark Hosenball wrote on August 1, 2012:
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order
authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources
familiar with the matter said. Obama's order, approved
earlier this year and known as an intelligence ``finding,''
broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide
support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
The article continued:
The White House is for now apparently stopping short of
giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do
just that, and precisely when Obama signed the secret
intelligence authorization, an action not previously
reported, could not be determined.
However, Hosenball also reported this important information:
A U.S. Government source acknowledged that under provisions
of the Presidential finding, the United States was
collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey
and its allies, and NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles,
also known as MANPADS, had been delivered to the rebels via
Turkey.
Is it possible that the President's intelligence finding included an
authorization for the weapons collected in Libya to be transferred to
Syrian rebels? Was the CIA annex being used to facilitate these
transfers? If so, how did the weapons physically move from Libya to
Syria? By plane? By ship?
And, again, I ask, if these weapons were not being transferred to
other countries like Syria, where exactly did they end up? Was the CIA
annex being used as a logistics center to track and transfer these
weapons? Was Ambassador Stevens' visit to the CIA annex on September 10
associated with these operations? And if these activities were taking
place, was this consistent with the President's intelligence finding?
Was the Congress notified?
Mr. Speaker, I raise these questions knowing that CIA operations
anywhere are sensitive and there is an appropriate time and place for
the discussions. However, I don't think the American people will ever
learn the truth about what happened that night and why--including the
questionable U.S. response--unless they understand what exactly was
taking place at the annex.
That is why I continue to believe that a House select committee is
the most appropriate path forward to investigate this and many other
unanswered questions about Benghazi.
____________________