[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 153 (Wednesday, October 30, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6931-H6935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                BENGHAZI

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Williams). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, last week, a new national poll was released by 
a respected pollster, Patrick Caddell, a Democrat, and John McLaughlin, 
a Republican, making clear that the American people still don't feel 
they know the truth about what happened in Benghazi nearly 14 months 
ago.
  According to the poll commissioned by Secure America Now, 63 percent 
of Americans ``think the Obama administration is covering up the facts 
about Benghazi''; and only 29 percent of registered voters say the 
Obama administration has been honest about Benghazi. Think about that 
for a moment. A supermajority of Americans believe they have been 
misled by their government about what happened in Benghazi. This is 
remarkable.
  The American people know how significant it is that Ambassador 
Stevens, the President's personal envoy to Libya, was the first 
Ambassador killed in the line of duty in four decades on September 11, 
11 years to the day that nearly 3,000 people were killed by al Qaeda 
terrorists.
  The American people intuitively understand that a plot of this scale 
was not spontaneously inspired, as claimed by the administration's now 
infamous talking points. The American people also know that it is 
remarkable that no effort was made by Washington to rescue the 
Americans in Benghazi or dispatch a hostage rescue team after the 
Ambassador went missing that night.
  I think the American people also wonder just what the CIA was doing 
in Benghazi. Was it involved in the collection and transfer of weapons 
to foreign countries? Possibly to support the Syrian rebels? And could 
some of those weapons have fallen into the wrong hands, like the Syrian 
jihadists?
  It is too easy to say that this is ``classified information'' and 
expect the American people to look away. Four Americans were killed 
that night, several were wounded, and no one came to help them.

                              {time}  1500

  Was it because the CIA was conducting a covert operation and if 
something went wrong, that was just the price of doing business? Were 
the CIA activities in Benghazi part of the reason the consulate and 
annex were targeted?
  These are legitimate questions the American people are asking that 
deserve clear answers.
  The McLaughlin-Cadell poll also found that 62 percent of the American 
people support creating a ``special bipartisan committee with broad 
powers to get to the truth about the attacks in Benghazi.''
  Eighty percent of Republicans and 58 percent of independents support 
the idea. Notably, nearly half of Democrats said it was important to 
create a bipartisan committee to learn the truth.
  The bottom line is Americans from across the political spectrum 
recognize that not only are they not being told the truth, but they 
feel Congress needs to change its approach to the investigation by 
creating a special committee.
  Why is it that, despite more than a year of investigations in five 
separate committees, the American people feel they still don't know the 
truth about what happened?
  Perhaps it is because, despite more than a year of investigations by 
five committees, most of the questions raised about that night remain 
unanswered.
  Perhaps it is because, despite more than a year of investigations by 
five committees, hardly any of the key witnesses responsible for the 
government's response that night--or lack thereof--have publicly 
testified.
  Perhaps it is because, despite more than a year of investigations, 
none of the survivors that could help answer key questions have 
publicly testified before Congress.
  Perhaps it is because, despite more than a year of investigations, so 
few committee hearings have been held publicly.
  Or perhaps it is because, despite more than a year of investigations, 
what little the American people have learned has come from news reports 
from CNN, CBS, FOX, and other news organizations and not from 
congressional hearings or testimony.
  I think all these factors have contributed to the sense among the 
American people that Congress has failed in its oversight 
responsibility.
  The American people know they haven't been told the full story about 
what happened that night, and they believe they have been intentionally 
misled by the administration.
  I have come to the floor today to once again call on my leadership to 
create a House select committee on Benghazi.
  I am often asked what is holding up the creation of this select 
committee. The simple answer is because the Speaker has not agreed to 
it. I like the Speaker. He has a tough job, and he may have good 
reasons for not wanting to establish a select committee, but I don't 
know what it is. And more importantly, I don't think the American 
people know what it is.
  Let me be clear: my criticism is not with the chairmen of committees 
that are looking into this. They are all good men. They have worked 
very hard. Their hands are tied. They are required, though, to stay 
within their jurisdictional lanes, examining only what they are allowed 
to investigate according to their committee charter.
  What happened in Benghazi is interrelated. The ``lanes'' crisscross. 
The White House, the State Department, the CIA, and the Defense 
Department were all involved, resulting in overlapping, but 
uncoordinated, investigations.
  Benghazi was a terrorist attack. We need a team effort to find out 
what happened, why it happened, and how we are going to bring the 
perpetrators to justice. Any of these chairmen would be capable of 
leading the select committee, and other members of their committees 
would be very good to serve as well. They would do a good job. I have 
confidence in them.
  And let me be clear: I have no intention of chairing or serving on 
the select committee. I will not serve on the select committee. I just 
want to learn the truth, just like the American people.
  There is a history in Congress that when things overlap between 
committees and transcend jurisdictions, select committees were 
established. Two well-known examples are Watergate and Iran Contra. And 
I will submit a list of the past select committees over the past 50 
years at the end of my statement.
  A select committee would take members from each committee with their 
individual expertise--and many of the members from these various 
committees have tremendous expertise--and have them work on this 
investigation

[[Page H6932]]

day in and day out, with no other distractions. It would also prevent 
the administration from saying one thing to one committee of 
jurisdiction and something else to another.
  I am reminded of the poem ``Blind Men and the Elephant,'' which is 
said to originate in India. In the poem, six blind men touch a part of 
an elephant and each has a different description of what the elephant 
must look like. They argue at great length among themselves. The poem 
ends by saying that while each is partly right, they are all wrong.
  The moral of the poem is that, independently, people may think their 
understanding of the situation is correct; yet they don't know the 
truth until the full picture comes into focus.
  Each of the five committees may not be seeing the entire picture of 
what happened that night. Regular order has limited the committees from 
going beyond their jurisdictions. One group ought to have the 
responsibility to get to the bottom of all parts of this tragedy. One 
group needs to lay out a roadmap to obtaining and reporting that 
information to the American people so we can restore confidence that 
Congress has a serious oversight plan on Benghazi.
  Remember, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. We need to 
see the whole of this tragedy.
  My bill to create a select committee, H. Res. 36, now has 178 
cosponsors--more than three-quarters of the Republican Conference and 
more than a supermajority of the majority.
  Nearly three-quarters of the Republican members who serve on the 
committees already investigating Benghazi now support a select 
committee. That means a plurality of the members who have been directly 
involved in committee investigations believe a select committee would 
be a more effective approach.
  The bill has been endorsed by the American Legion, representing so 
many vets who have sacrificed and given their time and effort to serve 
this country; the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which 
represents the diplomatic security agents that were present in 
Benghazi--the people who represent them and who were present in 
Benghazi support the select committee; groups representing the highly 
respected Special Ops community, who serve this Nation so well; and the 
editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
  Perhaps, most important, it is being endorsed by some of the family 
members of the Benghazi victims, like Sean Smith's mother and Ty Woods' 
father, who want to know the truth about what happened to the children 
that night and why their country fell short in its response.

  Nothing will bring their children back, but we can at least provide 
them with the clear answers and assign accountability for those 
responsible for intelligence failures and the inept response that 
night.
  The best way to do this is to break down the stovepipes between the 
five committees, hold public hearings, and issue subpoenas to all the 
survivors from Benghazi, those who were in Tripoli, and those who were 
in Washington responding that night.
  We need a public hearing with the principals involved in the 
decisionmaking process in Washington on September 11, 2012, including 
former Secretary Panetta, former Secretary of State Clinton, former CIA 
Director Petraeus, former White House adviser and current CIA Director 
John Brennan, and former AFRICOM Commander General Ham, as well as the 
White House.
  We also need a similar hearing with each of their deputies and others 
who were witness to the calls for help and the decisions surrounding 
the response not to help.
  Unless we hear from these people publicly, the American people will 
never learn the truth about whether there were warnings prior to the 
attack, what calls for help were made that night, whether the CIA 
security team was in fact delayed in leaving to respond to the initial 
attack at the consulate, and what the response was from Washington, 
among many other questions.
  Also, the American people should know of the bravery of the men who 
were there in Benghazi.
  Until these key individuals are sitting side by side at the witness 
table answering questions under oath in public, we will never get a 
clear picture of who made the decisions that night and why.
  Again, the hearings must be in public. The American people can handle 
the truth. Failure to get these answers means there will never be any 
accountability, which further erodes public confidence in government.
  Absent a select committee, the Congress will fail to learn the truth 
about what happened that night because the administration will continue 
to use the jurisdictional barriers between each committee to continue 
to slow-walk or deny information.
  There are a number of new developments in recent weeks that make a 
select committee more timely than ever.
  First, our colleague, Mike Rogers, chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, confirmed earlier reports, telling Fox News that the plot 
against the consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi appears to have 
been weeks, if not months, in the making and that at least two of the 
plot's leaders had close connections to senior al Qaeda leadership.
  Nearly a year ago, I circulated a memo to all members prepared by 
respected terrorist analyst Thomas Joscelyn detailing the apparent 
connections and likely coordination between al Qaeda affiliates in 
Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen that resulted in threats and attacks 
on U.S. diplomatic facilities in those countries the week of September 
11, 2012. Unfortunately, the committees have not held public hearings 
looking at the connection between these threats.
  Last week, Fox News' Catherine Herridge first reported that:

       At least two of the key suspects in the Benghazi terror 
     attacks were at one point working with al Qaeda senior 
     leadership, the sources familiar with the investigation tell 
     Fox News. The sources said one of the suspects was believed 
     to be a courier for the al Qaeda network and the other a 
     bodyguard in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 terror attacks.

  Catherine Herridge went on and said:

       The direct ties to the al Qaeda senior leadership undercut 
     earlier characterizations by the Obama administration that 
     the attackers in Benghazi were isolated extremists--not al 
     Qaeda terrorists--with no organizational structure or 
     affiliation.

  And then, on Sunday, CBS' ``60 Minutes'' aired a segment by Lara 
Logan, further explaining what happened that night and the increasingly 
clear connection to al Qaeda. And I am very grateful for ``60 Minutes'' 
covering this story.
  Logan reported:

       Just a few weeks ago, Abu Anas al-Libi was captured for his 
     role in the Africa bombings and the U.S. is still 
     investigating what part he may have played in Benghazi. We've 
     learned that this man, Sufian bin Qumu, a former Guantanamo 
     Bay detainee and a longtime al Qaeda operative, was one of 
     the lead planners, along with Furaj al-Chalabi, whose ties to 
     Osama bin Laden go back more than 15 years. He is believed to 
     have carried documents from the compound to the head of al 
     Qaeda in Pakistan.

  It is particularly notable how al-Chalabi reportedly delivered 
documents from U.S. facilities in Benghazi to the head of the al Qaeda 
in Pakistan, establishing a direct link between the Benghazi attacks 
and the most senior leadership of al Qaeda.
  Among the other revelations in the ``60 Minutes'' segment was that al 
Qaeda stated its intent to attack Americans in Benghazi, along with the 
Red Cross and the British mission, well in advance of September 11.
  Lieutenant Colonel Andy Wood, the top American security official in 
Libya in the months leading up to the attack, told CBS that both the 
State Department and the Defense Department were well aware of the 
threat and the attacks on the Red Cross and British missions. He said 
it was obvious to the Americans in Libya that it was only a matter of 
time until an attack on the U.S. facilities.

                              {time}  1515

  When the terrorists stormed the consulate property they said, ``We're 
here to kill Americans, not Libyans,'' and they spared the lives of 
Libyan guards.
  Confirmation of that information I detailed on the House floor in 
July, noting:

       A quick reaction force from the CIA annex ignored orders to 
     wait, and raced to the compound, at times running and 
     shooting their way through the streets just to get there.

  The Americans faced a ``professional enemy'' as they encountered 
waves of

[[Page H6933]]

intense fighting on the CIA annex in Benghazi during the early morning 
of September 12. Mortars fired during the final wave of the assault hit 
the roof of the annex three times in the dark. Lieutenant Colonel Wood 
described hitting a target like that as ``getting the basketball 
through the hoop over your shoulder'' and that it took ``coordination, 
planning, training, and experienced personnel'' to pull off such a 
``well-executed attack.''
  Two Delta Force operators who fought at the CIA annex, apparently as 
part of the impromptu team that flew in from Tripoli with Glen Doherty 
during the attack without permission from Washington, have ``been 
awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross--two of the 
military's highest honors.'' We owe them a debt of gratitude.
  The U.S. already knew that senior al Qaeda leader Abu Anas al Libi 
was in Libya and was ``tasked by the head of al Qaeda to establish a 
clandestine terrorist network inside the country; al Libi was already 
wanted for his role in bombing two U.S. Embassies in Africa'' where 
constituents from my congressional district were killed. Notably, the 
administration made no mention of his connection to the Benghazi 
attacks in its announcement of his capture last month.
  Some of the key questions that remain unanswered are why the CIA 
security team was ordered not to respond to the attack at the consulate 
and ``why no larger military response ever crossed the border into 
Libya--something U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks realized 
wasn't going to happen just an hour into the attack.''
  It is particularly noteworthy that Logan addressed the pressure on 
witnesses she encountered during her investigation, saying:

       An extraordinary amount of pressure on the people involved 
     not to talk and an extraordinary amount of pressure on anyone 
     in the government--the military side, the political side--not 
     to say anything out of official channels.

  This is consistent with the concerns I have repeatedly raised on the 
House floor about efforts by this administration to silence survivors 
and witnesses to the Benghazi attacks and response.
  What are they afraid of these witnesses sharing with the American 
people, and how can the Congress stand by and allow this to happen 
knowing full well it is taking place?
  CNN in July reported:

       Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the Agency's 
     mission in Libya have been subjected to frequent--even 
     monthly--polygraph examinations, according to a source with 
     deep inside knowledge of the Agency's workings. The goal of 
     the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if 
     anyone has been talking to the media or to Congress.

  That was reported by CNN in July.
  In a separate piece in July, FOX News reported:

       At least five CIA employees were forced to sign additional 
     nondisclosure agreements this past spring in the wake of the 
     Benghazi attack.

  That is what FOX News said in July of this year.
  As someone who represents thousands of Federal employees and 
contractors, including many who work for the CIA, the FBI, the State 
Department, and the Defense Department, I know from years of firsthand 
experience how agencies can sometimes use various forms of pressure and 
intimidation to keep employees from sharing information of concern with 
Congress.
  I know the Benghazi survivors and other witnesses that night from 
those agencies need the protection of a ``friendly subpoena'' to compel 
their testimony before Congress, particularly on matters as sensitive 
as this, in order to protect them. So far, the committees have failed 
to provide this protection to allow survivors and other witnesses to 
share their stories publicly so the American people can hear them.
  Based on disclosures in recent news reports, I now believe that the 
Benghazi plot represents a significant intelligence failure by the 
United States at several levels. Understanding these failures, as well 
as the government's inexplicable response during and after the attack, 
is critical to preventing future attacks.
  I want to outline a number of the apparent intelligence failures 
leading up to the attack, which I believe a select committee 
investigation would confirm:
  First: The State Department and CIA failed in their assessments of 
the militia groups working for the Americans in Benghazi, including the 
February 17 Martyrs Brigade, responsible for guarding the consulate 
property which abandoned the Americans and may have even facilitated 
access to the compound for the terrorists;
  According to a May 21 article by Eli Lake at the Daily Beast:

       CIA officers were responsible for vetting the February 17 
     Martyrs Brigade, the militia that was supposed to be the 
     first responders on the night of the attack, but melted away 
     when the diplomatic mission was attacked;

  Second: The State Department, the Defense Department, and the CIA 
apparently failed to adjust their security postures to support the 
Americans in Benghazi based on the growing number of attacks on Western 
targets in Benghazi during the summer of 2012;
  To date, no one has explained or been held accountable for why the 
U.S. submission was so poorly secured despite pleas for assistance by 
the Embassy staff in Tripoli to Washington;
  No one has adequately explained why the Defense Department's 
emergency response team was on a routine training mission in Croatia 
during the week of September 11 when it should have been on alert to 
respond, especially given the threats to the U.S. Embassies in Cairo 
and Egypt earlier in the day before the Benghazi attack. So the 
emergency response team was on a training mission in Croatia at the 
very time and on the very date that everyone knows, September 11. Given 
the threats to the Embassy, it is shocking that this is the case;
  Third: The intelligence community apparently failed to understand the 
size and scope of the attack brewing in Benghazi in the months leading 
up to September 11;
  As Chairman Rogers acknowledged to FOX News' Catherine Herridge last 
week, this was a well-coordinated attack that was many weeks, if not 
months, in the making;
  Earlier this year, CNN reported on the number of foreign fighters who 
arrived in Benghazi to participate in the attack in the days leading up 
to September 11. A witness in the ``60 Minutes'' report noted how black 
al Qaeda flags were openly flying in the months before the attack, and 
he also noted the announced threat against U.S., British, and Red Cross 
facilities;
  How did the government miss these warnings or were they just simply 
ignored?
  Fourth: The intelligence community seems to have more broadly failed 
to understand and anticipate how al Qaeda was metastasizing in North 
Africa;
  This administration has been quick to take credit for the raid that 
killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011, and declared throughout the 2012 
Presidential campaign that as a result of its efforts that ``core al 
Qaeda'' has been decimated. However, the facts don't support the 
administration's narrative;
  In a CNN report on Monday:

       Terrorist attacks hit a record high in 2012, and ``more 
     than 8,500 terrorist attacks killed more than 15,500 people 
     last year as violence tore through Africa, Asia, and the 
     Middle East.'' Increasingly, this includes North African 
     countries likely Libya;

  CNN also said:

       ``Despite the death of Osama bin Laden and the capture of 
     other key al Qaeda leaders, the group has exported its brand 
     of terrorism to other militant Muslims.'' These groups 
     include affiliates like Ansar al Sharia in Libya;

  Additionally, following a report on Benghazi, CBS' Lara Logan noted 
earlier this week:

       It became evident to us during the course of our research--
     this is what she said--that very little is known publicly 
     about the true nature of al Qaeda's network in Libya, and 
     that has consequences beyond Benghazi and beyond Libya. It 
     has consequences that speak to the national security 
     interests of the United States of America;

  Most of these affiliate terrorist groups have sworn an allegiance to 
al Qaeda and appear to closely coordinate their activities and plots 
with the core al Qaeda leadership, including Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin 
Laden's successor.
  To dismiss or minimize the relationship with al Qaeda's senior 
leadership is misguided and, I believe, dangerous as we have seen over 
the last several years. I fear that this administration's insistence in 
treating core al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan differently

[[Page H6934]]

than groups like Ansar al Sharia in Libya has led to a dangerous 
mischaracterization of the threat and that it has apparently resulted 
in the failure to anticipate attacks like the one that was carried out 
in Benghazi;
  Fifth: It appears that documents were taken from the consulate and 
CIA annex in Benghazi in the wake of the attacks;
  As I said earlier, ``60 Minutes'' reported that terrorist Faraj al 
Chalabi, whose ties to bin Laden go back nearly two decades, is 
``believed to have carried documents from the compound to the head of 
al Qaeda in Pakistan.''
  What was taken from the consulate and annex and given to al Qaeda's 
leadership? We don't know;
  Additionally, as Lara Logan noted following the report:

       We did not expect that we would find the U.S. compound in 
     the state that we found it. There was still debris and 
     ammunition boxes and a whiteboard that had the day's 
     assignments for the security personnel at the compound as of 
     September 11, 2012;

  Clearly, in the chaos of the fighting and evacuation that night, 
information was left behind at the facilities that may have 
consequences for Americans operating in the region.
  I also believe the administration's response to the Benghazi attack 
over the last year has been nothing short of shameful and that it also 
merits a full investigation by a select committee.
  From the first hours of the attack, when it became apparent that no 
help was coming to assist those under attack--either from U.S. forces 
or from our allies in the region--to the failure of the FBI to gain 
access to key suspects in Tunisia and Egypt over the last year, this 
administration has sent a signal to terrorists that the U.S. will not 
strongly respond to an attack on Americans abroad.
  The failure to either arrest or kill any of the scores of terrorists 
responsible for the attacks more than a year later is inexcusable and 
reflects an unwillingness by this administration to bring diplomatic 
pressure to bear on countries harboring these terrorists.
  I am increasingly convinced that this administration is more 
comfortable in using the ongoing FBI investigation as an excuse not to 
answer questions than it is in bringing these terrorists to justice.
  As I said on the House floor in July of last year, Tunisia detained 
the first suspect in the Benghazi terrorist attacks, Ali Harzi, after 
he was deported from Turkey in the weeks following the attacks.
  Tunisia, despite being a beneficiary of more than $300 million of 
U.S. foreign aid--American taxpayer money of over $300 million goes to 
Tunisia--refused to allow the FBI access to this suspect for nearly 5 
weeks.

                              {time}  1530

  It was only after congressional threats to cut off the aid that the 
government of Tunisia reconsidered its position.
  Ultimately, the FBI interrogation team returned to Tunisia and was 
allowed just 3 hours to interview Harzi with his lawyer and a Tunisian 
judge present.
  Not long after the FBI interview, Harzi was inexplicably released by 
Tunisian authorities, and his release was celebrated by Ansar al Sharia 
terrorists.
  Last month, it was confirmed that Harzi has been involved in at least 
one assassination of a Tunisian political leader.
  In another equally concerning case in Egypt, the FBI has been denied 
access to Muhammed Jamal, an al Qaeda-connected terrorist who ran 
training camps in Egypt and eastern Libya prior to the Benghazi attack.
  Several of Jamal's associates are believed to have participated in 
the Benghazi plot, and terrorism analysts believe that Jamal may have 
communicated directly with Zawahiri and al Qaeda leadership about this 
and other terrorist attacks.
  Although Jamal has been in Egyptian custody for more than a year on 
other terrorism-related charges, the U.S. has never been provided 
access to him under both the Morsi government and now the current 
military government.
  I personally delivered a letter to former Ambassador Patterson in 
Cairo asking then-President Morsi to provide the FBI access to Jamal 
and his documents. I don't believe the Ambassador ever delivered the 
letter, and if she did, she never told me. That in itself is very, very 
troubling.
  Jamal's connection to the Benghazi attack is particularly noteworthy 
given that both the U.S. and the United Nations formally, both the U.S. 
and the United Nations, formally designated him as a terrorist earlier 
this month.
  However, in another example of this administration's aversion to 
discussing terrorist connections to the Benghazi attack, the U.N. 
designation clearly notes Jamal's connection to the Benghazi attack, 
whereas the State Department designation omits it. So the U.N. 
designation clearly notes Jamal's connection to the Benghazi attack; 
the State Department omits it. The UN says, and our State Department 
omits it?
  I believe there has been pressure from the administration to omit 
this type of information from U.S. intelligence products, sending 
conflicting signals to both our allies and to countries that may have 
Benghazi suspects of interest to the FBI. I have a lot of confidence in 
the FBI if they are just allowed to do their job.
  But if we are unwilling to identify their involvement in the attacks, 
it further erodes U.S. credibility in asking for access to these 
individuals. This willful blindness is disingenuous and, I believe, 
ultimately dangerous.
  In early January, when I offered an amendment to create a select 
committee to the House rules package for the 113th Congress, Speaker 
Boehner told the Republican Conference that he didn't believe that we 
had ``reached the threshold'' for a select committee. He suggested that 
we might get to the threshold, but the committees of jurisdiction just 
needed more time.
  That may have been the case in January, but nearly 11 months later, I 
think the broad support that has built up over the last year makes it 
clear we have more than passed the threshold for a select committee 
now.
  I believe, and I believe the American people believe, that the 
threshold has clearly been reached in terms of cosponsors, 
endorsements, and new revelations from the press reports, and a deep 
concern the American people have for this issue.
  I was particularly struck by the comments made by Ambassador Stevens' 
deputy, Greg Hicks, in the 60 Minutes segment on Sunday:

       For us, for the people that go out onto the edge to 
     represent our country, we believe that if we get in trouble, 
     they are coming to get us, that our back is covered. To hear 
     that it is not, it is a terrible, terrible experience.

  It is not enough for the administration to just say there is nothing 
more that could have been done, especially given that evidence 
indicates that they didn't try much at all to assist the Americans 
under fire in Benghazi.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for a unified, bipartisan select committee. 
Let's get to the truth once and for all so we can find out what 
happened and restore the American people's confidence in congressional 
oversight and confidence in government.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

           HOUSE SELECT AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES  (1963-PRESENT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   House Select and Special Committees            Date of creation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Select Committee on Government Research..  September 11, 1963
Select Committee to Study the Factors      September 30, 1964
 Relating to the General Welfare and
 Education of Congressional Pages.
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct  April 3, 1967
Select Committee on the Seating of Adam    January 10, 1967
 Clayton Powell in the 90th Congress.
Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop  December 6, 1967
Select Committee to Regulate Parking on    March 13, 1969
 the House Side of the Capitol.
Select Committee on Crime................  July 1, 1968
Select Committee on the House Restaurant.  July 10, 1969
Select Committee to Investigate All        June 8, 1970
 Aspects of United States Military
 Involvement in Southeast Asia.
Select Committee on Committees I           January 31, 1973
 (Bolling).
Permanent Select Committee on Aging......  October 2, 1974
Select Committee on Intelligence (Nedzi    February 19, 1975
 and Pike).
Permanent Select Committee on              July 14, 1977
 Intelligence.
Select Committee on the Outer Continental  January 11, 1977
 Shelf (Ad Hoc).
Select Committee to Study the Problem of   September 11, 1975
 United States Servicemen Missing in
 Action in Southeast Asia.
Select Committee on Professional Sports..  May 18, 1976
Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and    July 29, 1976
 Control.
Select Committee on Assassinations.......  September 17, 1976
Select Committee on Ethics...............  March 9, 1977
Select Committee on Congressional          March 28, 1977
 Operations.
Select Committee on Energy (Ad Hoc)......  April 21, 1977
Select Committee on Population...........  September 28, 1977
Select Committee on Committees II          March 20, 1979
 (Patterson).
Select Committee on Children, Youth, and   September 29, 1982
 Families.
Select Committee on Hunger...............  February 22, 1984
Select Committee to Investigate Covert     January 7, 1987
 Arms Transactions with Iran.
Select Committee to Investigate Fire       May 10, 1988
 Safety in the Capitol and House Office
 Building.
Select Committee on U.S. National          June 18, 1998
 Security and Military/Commercial
 Concerns with the People's Republic of
 China.
Select Bipartisan Committee to             September 15, 2005
 Investigate the Preparation for and
 Response to Hurricane Katrina.

[[Page H6935]]

 
Select Committee on Energy Independence    March 8, 2007
 and Global Warming.
Select Committee to Investigate the        August 2, 2007
 Voting Irregularities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Committees in the US. Congress 1947-1992 by Garrison Nelson;
  Committees in the US. Congress 1993-2010 by Garrison Nelson.

  

                          ____________________