[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 69 (Thursday, May 8, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3953-H3961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 567, ESTABLISHING SELECT 
   COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN 
                                BENGHAZI



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  May 8, 2014, on page H3953, the following appeared: PROVIDING 
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 567, ESTABLISHING SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
BENGHAZI
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 567, ESTABLISHING SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 
EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 575 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 575

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 567) 
     providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on 
     the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. 
     The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to 
     its adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question except one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Rules.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Messer). The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), my friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 575, which provides for a closed rule for 
consideration of H. Res. 567.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 20 months since 
terrorists attacked the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, 
killing four Americans, including then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. 
Christopher Stevens.
  Since that time, the House Armed Services Committee, the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have all conducted 
investigations related to the events surrounding the attack and the 
administration's response. And I want to commend each of these 
committees and their chairmen and their members for work that has been 
done that is exemplary, that has aimed exactly on the questions that 
needed to be asked, and for those who have dedicated time and effort to 
make sure that these important issues are not only discussed but 
understood and resolved so that each of these committees, as they work 
with their particular agencies in the Federal Government, come to a 
clear and a clean understanding about what happened, what our responses 
might and should have been, and what they would be in the future.
  We are here today because this administration has chosen not to fully 
participate, to block our efforts to know the truth, and to provide the 
necessary people in a forthright manner who could be a part of 
answering these questions. This blockage has included a timed delivery 
that has not been timely but the time interval for requesting 
information, for the redacting of information that has not been 
properly done, and, perhaps most importantly, for the remarks that have 
been made by the administration, including the President of the United 
States, the former Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, and 
other highly public officials who serve at the pleasure of the American 
people who have tried to thwart, who have tried to misdirect, and who 
have tried to--what I believe is--badger Republicans into believing 
that what they did was aboveboard and correct when, in fact, an 
evaluation and a proper lessons learned lesson being available not only 
for them, for the United States Congress, but also accountability to 
the American Government.

                              {time}  1245

  We are here specifically today because in the last few weeks an 
outside group, Judicial Watch, through the Freedom of Information Act, 
obtained information and received that information through the judicial 
system of the United States whereby they received emails that were not 
redacted, that were not doctored or altered, and that came to them and 
did not match up with the information that had been provided to 
official committees of the

[[Page H3954]]

United States House of Representatives for official business.
  At a time when an administration decides that they are going to take 
advantage of the structure of the United States House of 
Representatives under official business, then that means that it is 
time for the United States House of Representatives to then learn that 
they are being duped, that they are being taken advantage of, and that 
our open system was being used, I believe, in a political way.
  That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker. We are here today not for 
political reasons but because the official business of the United 
States House of Representatives, article I, is to make sure that we 
understand and have oversight over those that are in article II and 
work with people who are in article III.
  We work together in a careful balance to make sure that what we do is 
in the best interest of the people--the American people, who need to 
have faith and confidence in the work that is done on their behalf--but 
also be accountable to the American people when great things happen and 
when mistakes happen also.
  To sweep something under the rug, to try and move people in another 
direction and try and fool them, to not be forthright about the actions 
that were taken or understood, I believe is a dereliction of duty. Most 
importantly, I think that what the investigation up to now has revealed 
is a lack of desire by this administration to fess up to what I believe 
might be failures or weaknesses in a system that we need to work on 
together.
  Four Americans' lives were not only at stake, but the reputation of 
the United States of America was on the line. Terrible things happened. 
Worse things could have happened, also. And for the United States 
Congress to have oversight to work on these issues is, I believe, an 
important national security objective.
  We are here today because President Barack Obama and his 
administration are not forthright or interested in working with 
official Members of the United States House of Representatives to clear 
the issue, and to understand what happened so that we may move forward 
with great confidence; that as our men and women who are in the State 
Department are engaged in the sensitive work, the work that is done on 
behalf of this great Nation, that we can understand that relationship 
with the United States military, with intelligence, with the money that 
we spend and the mission that the President of the United States 
decides that these men and women will be engaged in.
  We are here today to gain answers, to gain knowledge, and to gain 
corrective action. And that is why I believe last night in the Rules 
Committee, the Rules Committee moved forward on an original 
jurisdiction hearing whereby the Rules Committee would make and take 
the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we understood that 
we would be taking the time of the House of Representatives, that we 
would be taking, in essence, jurisdiction and putting that to a select 
committee, a select committee which would have the authority and the 
responsibility to ensure that the things which I have spoken of this 
morning were achieved.
  This is not political. This is public policy at its most important 
level. It is national security that is being discussed not only today 
but discussed in private among Members of Congress with this 
administration to ensure that the events that occurred on that day were 
well understood and reflective to the Members of Congress who provide 
money, resources, and oversight relating to those events.
  Unfortunately, it became apparent to me and others, including the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Honorable John Boehner, 
that these committees are struggling with an unwanted partner: the 
administration. And this administration, by refusing to completely 
comply with congressional subpoenas, by delaying the delivery of 
important documents, by heavily redacting critical information--not 
sensitive or information that might be considered national security--
and by retroactively classifying previously unclassified files, the 
Obama administration has thrown roadblocks at every turn of the road.
  The most recent example of this was the deliberate subversion of the 
investigation which occurred on April 17, less than a month ago. This 
is why the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, who 
has been very deliberative and most involved but careful to let each 
committee operate to the level of its jurisdiction, to make sure that 
each committee had not just the resources but the ability to make sure 
that they were on a process for the delivery of the things which I have 
talked about, up to and including the truth, Mr. Speaker, the truth 
behind the events, the truth behind how we would describe this event so 
that lessons would be learned, and evince how we would effectively and 
capably understand the new and current threats against the United 
States and what occurred on that day and on a moving-forward basis. If 
you refuse to participate with the United States Congress, if you 
subvert the process and take advantage of our structure, the Honorable 
John Boehner will then respond with that which is given to him and to 
the United States House of Representatives, and that is to honorably 
pivot based upon something that happened less than a month ago, April 
17.
  This administration chose to deliberately mislead the United States 
Congress, and we responded therein. On that day, the administration 
delivered 276 documents consisting of 779 pages. They gave these to the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, many of which continued 
to be heavily redacted. The same day, the State Department complied 
under a Freedom of Information Act requested by Judicial Watch. I 
believe that the timing of these two productions is not a coincidence 
as to whether or not Congress would have received these documents 
absent Judicial Watch's FOIA request. The two sets of documents are 
incredibly similar, and, shockingly, some of the documents received by 
the committee are more redacted than those received by Judicial Watch.
  Well, I get that. That is because under FOIA, the Freedom of 
Information Act, there is a criminal statute attached to that which 
those lawyers preparing these documents knew they could be criminally 
held liable.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line of this is this administration has not 
respected the United States Congress, did not respect the committees 
that were asking for this information, and there, too, made sure that 
they made their job even more difficult. These roadblocks, I believe, 
serve as two important points for us to remember: that the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives did not choose to be where we are today 
but, rather, it was this administration through its deliberate attempt 
to place us exactly where we are.
  So, first, the committee will have questions that it has to ask, and 
they are going to this administration to make sure that we have 
complete documentation. Every Member of this select committee will have 
the opportunity--and should have on a bipartisan basis--to see the 
documents. The select committee will consolidate itself into a 
centralized location in order to make sure that they work together. We 
are going to streamline congressional efforts when we find out the 
things which we could have and should have known but know now to avoid 
in the future.

  And lastly, we are going to come with an answer to the American 
people that we believe is what they are due, and that is: what 
happened; how could we have avoided it; and what do we look for in the 
future.
  Our representative government is founded on the assumption of a 
transparent government. Our President, Barack Obama, stated when he was 
elected that this would be the most open and transparent government. 
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to take the President at his word. The 
question is: Will the President live up to his word and expect this 
administration to join with the House of Representatives in this new 
era, this new way of trying to go about getting an answer for the 
American public?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the 2012 attack on Benghazi was a tragedy that took the

[[Page H3955]]

lives of brave American public servants representing and serving our 
country. And Congress has an obligation here--both to the families of 
the victims and to the country--to try to prevent this from ever 
happening again. But that is not at all what we are doing here today.
  The Senate has produced two bipartisan reports on the issue, and the 
State Department's Accountability Review Board has produced a 
constructive, unbiased report. There is a vast body of evidence already 
collected, and none of it demonstrates any sort of coverup or 
conspiracy.
  The majority here has had 13 congressional hearings over four 
committees, 50 briefings, produced five reports and 25,000 pages of 
documentation, wasted countless millions of dollars, and has gotten 
absolutely nowhere. One more committee weighted in favor of the 
majority is not going to do any better. We have bottomed out on 
Benghazi.
  Nonetheless, the majority has repeatedly demonstrated that rather 
than engaging in a serious, objective examination of the circumstances, 
they want to use the tragedy as an excuse to generate partisan talking 
points, and then has descended into the crass and the unbelievable.
  Several press reports this week, including one from Politico, 
indicate that the National Republican Congressional Committee sent out 
a fundraising email entitled ``You Can Become a Benghazi Watchdog Right 
Now,'' and that leads to a donation page where you have to pay to be a 
Benghazi watchdog. And even after their fundraising effort was exposed, 
Republicans are continuing to use this effort to raise money off of 
this tragedy. This morning's Politico says: ``Republicans stick with 
Benghazi cash grab.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit into the Record these two 
articles from Politico, May 8 and May 9. The first one, ``NRCC''--which 
stands for the National Republican Congressional Committee--
``fundraising off Benghazi,'' and the second one this morning, 
``Republicans stick with Benghazi cash grab.''

                      [From POLITICO, May 7, 2014]

                    NRCC Fundraising Off of Benghazi

                           (By Jake Sherman)

       The House Republican campaign arm is rebuffing the chairman 
     of the Benghazi select committee and is raising money off the 
     GOP's investigation into the 2012 attack.
       A post on the National Republican Congressional Committee 
     website dated May 6 is titled ``You Can Become a Benghazi 
     Watchdog Right Now.''
       ``House Republicans will make sure that no one will get 
     away from [Trey] Gowdy and the Select Committee,'' the blog 
     post says. ``This is going to be a national effort for a 
     national investigation.''
       Once a visitor to the site enters their name, email and ZIP 
     code, it asks for a donation to ``stop Democrats from 
     controlling all of Washington.''
       But Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), whom Speaker John Boehner (R-
     Ohio) tapped to chair the panel, said Wednesday morning on 
     MSNBC's ``Morning Joe'' he would ask Republicans to forgo 
     fundraising off the attacks.
       ``Yes, and I will cite myself as an example,'' Gowdy said. 
     ``I have never sought to raise a single penny on the backs of 
     four murdered Americans.''
       For right now, the NRCC doesn't appear to be backing down.
       ``The Obama administration has not been honest with the 
     American people with regards to the security failures in 
     Benghazi, which left four Americans dead,'' said NRCC 
     spokeswoman Andrea Bozek. ``Our goal is to hold Democrats in 
     Congress accountable who vote against creating the select 
     committee on Benghazi and who continue to try to sweep this 
     controversy under the rug.''
                                  ____


                      [From POLITICO, May 7, 2014]

               Republicans Stick With Benghazi Cash Grab

                    (By Byron Tau and Katie Glueck)

       Republicans have no intention of listening to Trey Gowdy.
       A number of Republican candidates and conservative groups 
     have openly used the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, 
     Libya, as a cash grab. And that's likely to continue despite 
     a strongly worded rebuke from the new chairman of the 
     Republican select committee assigned to investigate the 
     response to the attacks.
       Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, commented on MSNBC 
     Wednesday that he and fellow Republicans should not fundraise 
     off ``the backs of four murdered Americans''--creating a new 
     standard by which the party can be judged and opening the GOP 
     up to charges of past, present and future hypocrisy.
       That's put the party in an awkward spot. Republicans on 
     Capitol Hill are eager to lend the looming committee 
     investigation into the murder of four Americans an air of 
     sobriety, dignity and seriousness. But political strategists 
     are eager to mobilize the GOP base and amp up grassroots 
     fundraising by capitalizing on the base's outrage over how 
     the Obama administration handled the attacks.
       The 2012 consulate attack and accusations of a White House 
     cover-up are catnip for grassroots donors and activists. And 
     Benghazi--and the select committee assigned to investigate 
     it--is a key part of the GOP fundraising and mobilization 
     strategy. This week, the National Republican Congressional 
     Committee rolled out a new fundraising campaign called 
     ``Benghazi Watchdogs''--an effort by the aiming to raise 
     money off Gowdy's new position. Publicly available domain 
     registration data shows that the site was registered Tuesday.
       Other fundraising solicitations about Benghazi include:
       A fundraising page from the NRCC with a photo of Obama and 
     former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accompanied by big 
     bold text proclaiming: ``Benghazi was a coverup. Demand 
     answers.''--and asking for donations of up to $500.
       A May 2 blog post from the National Republican Senatorial 
     Committee titled ``Dude. You're Being Lied To About 
     Benghazi.'' The post was in response to former White House 
     spokesman Tommy Vietor's appearance on Fox News last week 
     where he used the line ``Dude, that was like two years ago.'' 
     It concludes: ``Americans deserve the truth about Benghazi 
     and it's clear Democrats will not give it to them. Donate 
     today and elect a Republican Senate majority.''
       A May email blast from the conservative nonprofit Special 
     Ops OPSEC Education Fund that asks for an ``immediate 
     contribution'' of $25, $50, $100 or more to ``hold Obama and 
     Hillary's feet to the fire until justice is done.''
       A January email from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in the 
     aftermath of the State of the Union noting that Obama 
     ``failed to mention Benghazi, the IRS, or the NSA'' and 
     asking for donations.
       A John Bolton PAC email from April accused Obama, Clinton 
     and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of refusing to take 
     responsibility for ``leaving Americans to die at the hands of 
     terrorists.''
       An email from Senate candidate Joe Miller saying that there 
     is ``strong evidence that senior administration officials 
     crafted a false narrative for purely political purposes.''
       An email this week from Rep. Scott Rigell's (R-Va.) 
     campaign asking for ``$5, $10, $20, or $50 to help keep him 
     in Congress and hold the Administration accountable'' that 
     also asks ``Why didn't the military respond to the events in 
     Benghazi Were there even military assets in the region 
     available? If not, why not? Who made the decision not to send 
     support? House Republicans are committed to finding out the 
     truth about Benghazi.''
       An email from House candidate Andy Tobin accusing Obama of 
     ``covering up vital information about what happened that 
     night'' and asking for donations.
       Conservative pundits and former politicians like Mike 
     Huckabee, Allen West and others have sent emails to their 
     lists, according to the liberal watchdog group Media Matters.
       Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the NRSC, said that there 
     hasn't been a coordinated effort from the committee to 
     fundraise off of the issue, even though his committee wrote a 
     blog post with a fundraising solicitation about the hearings.
       ``Part of politics is fundraising. I think fundraising is a 
     separate activity than calling attention to important 
     issues,'' he said in an interview. ``Benghazi is going to be 
     a topic of discussion because it deserves answers, and I 
     think it's important for both candidates and elected 
     officials to discuss it.''
       GOP strategist Rick Wilson said that while fundraising off 
     of such a sensitive topic needs to be done within the 
     ``bounds of propriety,'' candidates on both sides of aisle 
     aren't hesitant to try to turn the ``story du jour'' into 
     donation pitches, especially when seeking to round up small-
     dollar contributions.
       ``It's a tragedy, a serious national security question that 
     has to be resolved, and the administration owes answers,'' 
     Wilson said of Benghazi. ``On the other hand, you're going to 
     see people on both sides use it to build mailing lists, build 
     name ID, fundraising lists, etc. There's a base level of 
     inevitability.''
       Democrats pointed to both the committee itself and the fact 
     that it was being used as a fundraising ploy as evidence that 
     the entire investigation was a political farce.
       Chris Lehane, a veteran Democratic strategist, said that 
     Republicans fundraising off of Benghazi could easily overplay 
     their hand.
       ``At the end of the day you're dealing with an issue that 
     was a tragedy,'' he said. ``From a political perspective, 
     that's raising money from a situation where people 
     representing our government were killed. It's a politically 
     perilous, treacherous thing to do.''
       In a general election, he said, a Democrat could easily 
     dismiss such a Republican as ``playing politics with people's 
     lives.''
       White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest on 
     Wednesday jabbed the NRCC for its fundraising efforts.
       ``I think that the fact that the National Republican 
     Congressional Committee is raising money off the creation of 
     this committee

[[Page H3956]]

     is a pretty good indication of the political motivation 
     that's at work here,'' he said aboard Air Force One.
       And Republicans aren't the only ones to use national 
     tragedies for fundraising or list-building.
       The nonprofit Organizing for Action has come under fire 
     several times for using gun-related events to build their 
     email list--sending emails on the anniversary of the Newtown 
     shooting and the day of the Navy Yard shooting.
       Republican officials defended their tactics as giving 
     voters answers to pressing questions.
       ``The Obama administration has not been honest with the 
     American people with regards to Benghazi, and if Nancy Pelosi 
     becomes speaker the American people will never know the 
     truth. Our goal is to hold Democrats in Congress accountable 
     who vote against creating the select committee on Benghazi 
     and who continue to try to sweep this controversy under the 
     rug,'' said NRCC spokeswoman Andrea Bozek.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Additionally, reports today from a prominent 
journalist say that Mr. Boehner himself says that he will not try to 
stop the fundraising.
  The majority is demonstrating without a shadow of a doubt that like 
the many, many votes we have taken trying to kill health care, this is 
a political move. That is the most crass and awful thing to do to the 
families of these four people who died. We keep over and over rubbing 
salt into that awful wound by bringing this up over and over. And how 
do you think they feel now knowing what this game is about in the House 
of Representatives?
  I am appalled the majority would use these deaths for political gain 
and political money when what the families of the victims and Americans 
want to do is to ensure it never happens again. But we are doing 
nothing in the world to ensure that.
  Not only is the majority disregarding the bipartisan findings, but 
their own process is so wrought with error, partisanship, and deception 
that leaders in their own party are calling foul.
  The Oversight Committee has produced several witnesses of dubious 
quality, but the most recent one is a brigadier general, to testify 
about the minority, and the minority was only give his name and had no 
way--we didn't have any address or anything else--to even verify his 
credentials.

                              {time}  1300

  We are indebted to Congressman Buck McKeon, Armed Services Committee 
chairman, who discredited this witness by calling Brigadier General 
Robert Lovell an unreliable witness and criticized Lovell's assertion 
that the State Department was not quick to deploy troops to respond to 
the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya. Lovell testified Thursday before 
Issa's oversight panel.
  Congressman McKeon stated:

       Brigadier General Lovell did not serve in a capacity that 
     gave him reliable insight into operational options available 
     to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific 
     courses of action not taken.

  McKeon added:

       The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a 
     dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command that 
     night, yielding thousands of pages of transcripts, emails, 
     and other documents. We have no evidence that State 
     Department officials delayed the decision to deploy what few 
     resources DOD had available to respond.

  How tragic is that? How tacky is that? How beneath the dignity of the 
House of Representatives is that?
  I have an amendment to this resolution based on a simple premise 
that, if this thing is going to be put together and funded, that it 
really does some kind of work bipartisanly, which would be really 
strange in this House, but the idea of having another committee to try 
to get different results from all of other committees and all of the 
other hearings with the results they have had really is a foolish waste 
of time.
  Our amendment makes membership on the committee equally divided 
between Republicans and Democrats. We know already that is not going to 
happen.
  It guarantees the minority signoff on subpoenas and depositions--no 
such luck.
  It guarantees equal distribution of money, staffing, and other 
resources of the committee.
  It requires the committee to establish written rules--that would be a 
good one--specifically including rules concerning how documents and 
other information may be obtained, used, or released.
  It guarantees equal access to evidence and materials of the committee 
and perhaps can identify witnesses who are going to be coming before 
the committee.
  It provides for transparency of the committee's expenditures and 
budgeting.
  It ensures that a quorum for taking testimony or receiving evidence 
includes at least one minority member.
  Finally, it ensures that the majority has a say in decisions about 
extended questioning and staff questioning of witnesses.
  Mr. Speaker, it is shameful what is happening here today. People, not 
just persons right now, but I believe that future historians looking at 
the setup of this committee will be appalled, as all of the rest of us 
are on our side, that to make use politically and financially of the 
tragedy of the loss of four brave Americans is beneath contempt.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is the committee that 
meets upstairs. We decide what legislation will come to the floor. In 
this case, the House Rules Committee has original jurisdiction over 
this bill, but the Rules Committee is made up of specialists, of 
experts across this Congress, not only on the Republican and Democrat 
side, but people who represent people back home who hear from and want 
to know about the effects that Congress does and about the daily 
impact.
  One of those Members comes with vast experience and comes to us as 
former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is a person who 
is well respected and thoughtful.
  More importantly, she was on duty as the chairwoman at the time 
Benghazi occurred, and we are delighted she is on the Rules Committee. 
She has brought incredible integrity and insight into this matter.
  At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Sessions for his 
inspiring leadership on the Rules Committee on every issue, but most 
especially as he spearheaded the creation of this select committee on 
Benghazi to examine what happened, what led to this attack, and what 
has happened since. Thank you for your leadership, Chairman Sessions.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here to fully support this measure, but it 
really is unfortunate, it is sad, it is tragic that it has come to 
this. We shouldn't have to be here today debating the rule and, later, 
the underlying resolution on having to form a select committee to be 
able to get to the truth about what happened on that tragic day and 
night of September 11, 2012; but, unfortunately, our patience has been 
sorely tried, so here we are.
  The administration has, for nearly 2 years now, been stonewalling and 
obfuscating, anything it can do, to avoid letting the truth out about 
that tragic terrorist attack in our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
  As chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time of the 
attack, as Chairman Sessions has pointed out, I know, perhaps as well 
as any of our colleagues, just how much the administration has been 
trying to protect this false narrative and President Obama, the 
narrative that Libya was a political success. Repeated requests for 
more protection were ignored.
  When the Accountability Review Board report was released, I planned 
on convening a hearing to examine the assessment and the 
recommendations; but in true stalling fashion, the State Department did 
not release the report to us until about 8:30 p.m., just a few hours 
before our hearing was set to begin.
  Then, of course, there was a new song and dance every time we tried 
to secure a date for Secretary Clinton to come before our House Foreign 
Affairs Committee to testify.
  We would even have taken any administration official, for that 
matter. It took 3 months for the administration to provide us with 
witnesses, and it did not provide Secretary Clinton to our committee 
until the following year.
  This is not the moves, Mr. Speaker, of an administration that had 
planned on being the most transparent in history. In fact, this 
administration has been anything but transparent, as we

[[Page H3957]]

have seen with the emails, having been the latest revelation in the 
never-ending attempt to avoid telling the American public the full 
truth about what happened, what was the lead up to the terrorist 
attack, what happened during the many hours of that firefight, and what 
happened to all of those documents afterwards
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, we need this select committee, to get the 
truth out there for the American public, so that we can have an open 
and honest debate about what happened on that fateful day and to ensure 
that we can do everything in our power to prevent another terrorist 
attack like this from happening in the future.
  Let's remember these names, Mr. Speaker: Ambassador Chris Stevens, 
Information Officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and 
Glen Doherty. These are names that the American people need to remember 
each and every day.
  Mr. Speaker, some folks have mentioned the fundraising aspect of this 
Benghazi investigation, and that is rather sad and pathetic to bring 
that up, but it is interesting because I was reading a newspaper 
article.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meadows). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. It is interesting that this says that the Democrats 
are fundraising off GOP fundraising off Benghazi. It is a very 
interesting article, and I hope that all of our colleagues will look at 
it.
  It is an article, and it says:

       Contribute now, Democrats 2014.

  I am not pointing fingers and calling names; but if we are going to 
get blamed for something, I think that there is enough blame to go 
around. To sensationalize this and to fundraise off it, this is 
something some groups are trying to do, but I believe that the pot is 
calling the kettle black.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for your respected leadership on this issue. 
The American people deserve to know the truth. We must not keep 
promoting a false narrative. Libya was not a political success. Libya 
continues, to this day, to be a tinderbox waiting to explode.
  Terrorist groups are all over the place. Let's not ignore the facts 
on the ground. Let's get to the truth about what happened to Benghazi, 
and having this select committee is a way to get to the truth--pure and 
simple--no politics.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the ranking member of the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Government Operations.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the former 
chairman of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter from New York.
  I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying 
resolution, H. Res. 567. The majority's obsession with keeping Benghazi 
conspiracy theories front and center through the midterm elections, 
despite the fact that Republicans have held 10 Congressional hearings 
already, nine classified Member briefings, and 16 Intelligence 
Committee oversight events on the Benghazi attack, despite those 35 
congressional proceedings here in the House alone on Benghazi, the most 
astonishing information to emerge has been the striking level of 
disinterest exhibited by certain Members of the majority with respect 
to posing substantive questions that actually might inform efforts to 
enhance the security of American personnel abroad.
  In fact, the independent Accountability Review Board of Admiral 
Mullen and Ambassador Pickering, two of the most respected civil 
servants in our lifetimes, as well as the report of the Republican 
majority-controlled House Armed Services Committee, have thoroughly 
vetted and debunked the outrageous and irresponsible Benghazi 
conspiracy theories that may make for good Republican fundraising, but 
disgracefully slander the service and dedication of public servants in 
the military and diplomatic corps.
  In a USA Today op-ed published yesterday, my friend, Mr. Gowdy, from 
South Carolina asked:

       Was our military response during the pendency of the siege 
     sufficient?

  To save us all the time and resources that the Speaker now apparently 
plans to spend on his proposed partisan show panel, respectfully, I 
would recommend that my colleagues pose that very question to the 
esteemed Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who 
stated last week:

       The Armed Services Committee has interviewed more than a 
     dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command, yielding 
     thousands of pages of transcripts, emails, and other 
     documents. We have no evidence that the Department of State 
     officials delayed the decision to deploy those resources 
     available to the DOD to respond.

  With their one-sided partisan select committee, we will not further 
an investigation or get at the truth the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen) talked about.
  We will reveal nothing new; rather, we will do our great Nation a 
grave disservice in continuing to perpetuate myths and conspiracies 
that cloud a simple, painful truth: the attack on Benghazi was a 
tragedy perpetrated by jihadist terrorists--not by foreign diplomats, 
not by U.S. diplomats.
  There was no coverup. There was no soft-pedaling of this act of 
terror, not by the President, not by the Secretary of State, not by the 
Secretary of Defense, nor our Intelligence Committee; and to suggest 
otherwise is a great slander.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Instead, Republicans on the Oversight Committee remain 
obsessed with recycling tired and worn talking points in a cynical 
attempt to fire up the GOP base before the midterm elections this 
November.
  Unfortunately, the regression into crass demagoguery has real world 
consequences, Mr. Speaker. Our country's diplomatic corps cannot 
operate effectively if we lock them in fortresses and prevent them from 
engaging in foreign nations because there might be a risk.
  The reality is that striking the right balance between necessary 
security and effective diplomacy is an inherently complex and daunting 
challenge for our foreign service every day, everywhere.
  As Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen accurately stated in their 
review report:

       No diplomatic presence is without risk, and the total 
     elimination of risk is a nonstarter for U.S. diplomacy.

  In closing, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: 
Why do they not trust the judgment of this Chamber's foremost military 
expert, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who pronounced 
himself ``satisfied that where the troops were, how quickly the thing 
all happened, and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn't have 
done more than we did''?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

                              {time}  1315

       Mr. CONNOLLY. We probably couldn't have done more than we 
     did.



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  May 8, 2014, on page H3957, the following appeared: We probably 
couldn't have done more than we did
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. CONNOLLY. We 
probably couldn't have done more than we did


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Those are the words of our colleague from California, the chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  I urge all Members to oppose this cynical, exploitative, partisan 
ploy that is not worthy of this House.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the recognition. I thank the 
chairman of the committee, the distinguished Texan, for yielding me the 
time. I certainly thank him for his confidence in me in allowing me to 
be on the Rules Committee this past year and a half.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now nearly 2 years, an administration that ran on 
the concept of transparency but now only functions in opacity. We heard 
from the administration on September 12 of 2012:

       We will not waiver in our commitment to see that justice is 
     done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will 
     be done.

  It seems strange now, almost 2 years later, to think on those words. 
That seemed like a sincere promise. The American people believed that 
promise that was made just days after the attack. If then we could have 
known that 19 months later the President's press secretary would stand 
before the White House press corps and laugh about the

[[Page H3958]]

event and call it a conspiracy theory. I don't think we would have 
believed it if someone had told us what the future held, but sadly, 
that is the state of affairs today.
  Here we have a tragic event against our Ambassador, against American 
citizens, and the darned thing has nearly become a cold case because of 
the refusal of the White House to prioritize anything related to the 
investigation except for their own bizarre political spin about what 
happened.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been forced to look into the anguished faces of 
the victims' families and tell them that we have not been able to find 
answers for them about the attack, the attack that killed their sons. 
We have an entire Caucus that has threatened to boycott an 
investigation that they have simply dismissed as political excess. It 
is not political excess to those families, Mr. Speaker.
  In turn, we as a Congress must do everything in our power to do what 
the President said, what the President stated back in 2012: to ensure 
that justice is done for this terrible act. The only way to deliver 
that justice is to establish the select committee.
  This is another step in what has become a very long process. I urge 
my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, 
the ranking member on the Rules Committee, and my friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas, for the hard work that the Rules 
Committee engages in.
  I think the first comment that I would like to make is what we have 
been making, Ms. Slaughter, throughout this process, is our deep and 
abiding sympathy for the Americans who lost their lives in the name and 
in the duty to this country. I don't think there is a divide on that 
issue.
  I would take a different perspective from a cold case. This is a hot 
and ongoing case that has been investigated and has evidenced 
individuals whom I would believe that, in any other instance, my 
friends on the side of the aisle would hold to the integrity of their 
representation.
  One hundred years of military experience testified on the question of 
Benghazi, I believe, in the Committee on Armed Services. We have heard 
over and over from those in the State Department. We have had 
conclusions on the question of coverup, and we have seen nothing 
pointed to the administration to do so.
  I think the issue today is a question of fairness. That is what 
Democrats have always stood for. I have watched my leaders through the 
endless investigations, starting from Waco and the impeachment process, 
and I can almost say--maybe I should even say that I come from a 
district where the Honorable Barbara Jordan served. She was on the 
Watergate Committee and the impeachment process as a member of the 
Judiciary Committee. I remember her posture on that committee and 
holding up the Constitution. As a Texan, as a Democrat, we admired 
that. That is the premise upon which I believe we should be looking at 
this process.
  As I read this resolution, I am troubled, Mr. Speaker, because if we 
are going to do fairness and if we are going to reach a level of 
ethical respect, then there is a concern. We need an amendment, because 
this follows the rules of the House, which means that the chairman is 
solely given and ceded the authority--that means he or she could--of 
subpoena power. That does not rise to the level of fairness.
  Now, someone refuted our leadership's request for a bipartisan, even-
numbered committee and cited that the only committee that is even-
numbered is the Committee on Ethics, and they are right, Mr. Speaker. 
We want this to be an ethical, fair, responsibly, constitutionally 
grounded committee investigation report, because the committee is 
unending. It will end only 30 days after the completion of its work; 
therefore, it can go on and on and on. The question is will the 
American people see fairness.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman another minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, what we want them to see, if we truly 
honor those dead Americans that died in the line of battle and duty, 
then we need the kind of face to the American people that balances the 
subpoena power so that we all--meaning Republicans and Democrats who 
are on that committee, if that committee is finalized--can responsibly 
question witnesses, and that the issue will not be the committee in its 
process, but it will be the fairness, it will be the Constitution, it 
will be the dignity and honor we give to those who have fallen.
  I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, we can waive the 
point of order, amend this on the floor of the House to give a balance 
to this committee, to add the balance that our leadership has asked 
for, the fairness that our leadership is asking for, give the subpoena 
powers in a balanced manner, pay tribute to those who have honored this 
Nation by being willing to stand in the line, in the eye of fire.
  I conclude simply by indicating we are the people of this Nation. 
Respond to our concerns. And I ask my colleagues to reject this rule 
and the underlying bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Members of Congress who attend hearings and heard the testimony 
yesterday should not mislead the American people by their statements on 
the floor as the gentlewoman from Texas did.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) 
just talked about how we have proposed that this be a balanced 
committee like the Ethics Committee. That was done with regard to 
another special committee, in fact, the bill that was sponsored by 
current Speaker, then-minority leader, John Boehner in the 110th 
Congress.
  They set up a special committee with regard to voting irregularities. 
They had an equal balance between Democrats and Republicans to remove 
any taint of partisanship from the proceedings. That would be a 
welcomed change, but again, that was not even allowed to be discussed 
under this rule.
  Another language of concern in the underlying bill which we tried to 
address in the Rules Committee but unfortunately were voted down is 
that this bill allows for such funds that are needed to be appropriated 
for this purpose. We were not even presented with any cost estimates 
for this committee.
  On the committee, it was noted that Kenneth Starr's investigation of 
then-President Clinton cost in excess of $80 million. We simply don't 
know if this is a $1 million, a $10 million, a $50 million, or a $200 
million endeavor; nor were we allowed to even allow for a vote our very 
simple bipartisan proposal to pay for this bill, which would have been 
to allow a vote on H.R. 15.
  H.R. 15, which is a bill that has bipartisan support, has already 
passed the Senate by more than two-thirds, would pass as a pay-for if 
brought to the floor of the House, actually generates over $200 
billion. Even if this select committee were to spend hundreds of 
millions of dollars, if we were able to include immigration reform as a 
way of paying for it, it would still reduce the deficit by $199 billion 
or more.
  We weren't even allowed an up-or-down vote on that topic. In the 
spirit of bipartisanship, I offered to support the establishment of the 
select committee if we could establish immigration reform as the way of 
paying for this. Unfortunately, despite support from both sides of the 
aisle in committee, we were, nevertheless, voted down.
  I want to be clear that the issue of immigration reform will not go 
away. We will continue to offer it as a way of paying for various 
bills. I hope that a discussion is allowed about how to pay for this 
committee, and that is why I oppose the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for yielding 
me this time.

[[Page H3959]]

  I rise in strong opposition to both the rule and the bill. It is 
really a political charade and a pointless attempt to find a scandal 
that simply doesn't exist.
  What happened in Benghazi in September 2012 was a tragedy. The loss 
of those four Americans broke our hearts, and it reminded us that 
diplomacy can be dangerous work and that we need to do all we can to 
protect those who represent our country around the world.
  What have we seen from certain members of the majority since that 
day? Partisan games. And this select committee would be nothing more 
than the next chapter in this political farce, just in time for the 
midterm elections and with 2016 peeking over the horizon.
  What is it exactly that my colleagues are after? After the attack in 
Benghazi, we all wanted answers: What happened that night that led to 
the death of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty? 
Where did we fall short in protecting our people, and who was 
responsible? What could we do to make sure something like this wouldn't 
happen again?
  Well, an Accountability Review Board led by Ambassador Thomas 
Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen, two men with seriousness of 
purpose and no partisan agenda, helped answer those questions. They 
found serious management and leadership failures at the State 
Department. Bipartisan reports from the Senate Homeland and 
Intelligence Committees supported those findings.
  Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sat before 
committees in both Houses and took full responsibility. She and her 
successor, John Kerry, have said over and over again that the State 
Department is implementing all of the recommendations of the Review 
Board.
  That didn't satisfy some of my friends on the other side. They 
started moving the goalpost, and so began this long, costly exercise. 
They tried to tie Secretary Clinton directly to the security failures 
that led to this tragedy, but that didn't turn up anything. Then they 
floated the idea that our military was told to stand down in the moment 
of greatest need in Benghazi. Even the Republican chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services said that claim had no merit.
  Since there is no wrongdoing to be found with respect to the actual 
attack, now we are focused on the talking points and the so-called 
coverup. I ask again: What is it my colleagues are after? What is 
allegedly being covered up?
  At the time the attacks took place, American Embassies from Southeast 
Asia to the Middle East, to North Africa, to England were surrounded by 
protestors angered over an anti-Islamic video. In Egypt, our Embassy 
was stormed.
  So as the fires in Benghazi were still burning and the air was thick 
with smoke, the CIA's assessment was that the attack was the result of 
a spontaneous protest. They were wrong. In the days that followed, they 
corrected that mistake, confirming that the attack was a deliberate and 
organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.
  In the days after the attack, these protests in the region were still 
raging. Some of them were violent. In Yemen, additional marines were 
deployed to protect our personnel. The latest conspiracy theory centers 
on an email sent at the time. In context, it is clear that Ben Rhodes, 
the Deputy National Security Adviser, was concerned about protecting 
Americans amid a volatile climate around our diplomatic facilities all 
over the world.
  Those who want to create a scandal where none exists call this a 
smoking gun. That is not much to go on. Nevertheless, after more than a 
year of turning up nothing new, my colleagues want to create a new 
committee with sweeping powers, a broad mandate, and no fixed timeline 
for producing any sort of report.
  When I heard of the terrible idea to create this special committee, I 
could not help but think of Iraq where, not four, but 4,000 Americans 
died. My Republican colleagues conducted virtually no investigations 
into that tragedy based on a lie. They set up no committees to uncover 
the truth behind the phony intelligence, the torture, the secret 
prisons, or the spin about how Iraqis would greet us with flowers. 
Nothing.
  So I have to ask a final time: What is it my colleagues on the other 
side are after? I think the answer is pretty clear. They are after a 
political win. They want to tear down leaders in the Democratic Party 
and raise money for their campaign committees, and they are willing to 
politicize the deaths of four Americans to do it.

                              {time}  1330

  Our constituents aren't interested in this. They want us to do our 
jobs, not waste millions of taxpayer dollars on a fabricated scandal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Let's do what they sent us here to do. Let's protect our 
diplomats and development experts. Let's work to create jobs and shore 
up our crumbling infrastructure. Let's fix our immigration system and 
promote energy security. Let's vote ``no'' on this resolution and get 
back to governing.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Colorado will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining 
speakers on his side.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, I do not.
  Mr. POLIS. Then I am prepared to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As we have seen time and time again, sadly the Republicans are taking 
an unspeakable tragedy--the death of four brave American citizens--and 
turning it into a partisan talking to the point of selling membership 
to become Benghazi investigators on a partisan Web site rather than 
engaging in a bipartisan process to get to the root of the matter.
  The families of those who died deserve more than that. They deserve 
that Democrats and Republicans work together rather than use their pain 
for political or financial gain for either party.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to make in order our amendment to ensure that the 
select committee has a chance to succeed where four previous House 
investigations have not to ensure that we have a full, accurate, and 
objective accounting for the American people of the events in Benghazi. 
By ensuring equal representation, equal resources, and equal say over 
the use of subpoenas and depositions, we can fulfill our obligations to 
our Nation and to our institution to ensure that we get to the bottom 
of this matter for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we and my colleagues on the Rules Committee 
have tried to make this process work. We tried to propose a bipartisan 
way of paying for these efforts, we tried to propose a balanced way for 
this committee to go about its business. But at every turn we were shot 
down. That is why I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who 
care about honoring those who lost their lives, who care about getting 
to the bottom of the events, join me in opposing this rule and 
defeating the previous question so that we may begin a process that has 
the confidence of the American people rather than just speaks to one 
partisan base or the other.
  The American people deserve this institution acting at its best with 
regard to this matter, Democrats and Republicans acting in concert, 
both enjoying the power of subpoena, the ability to schedule witnesses, 
equal resources on the committee, so we can have a full, objective, and 
hopefully unanimous account of the events.
  That should be the goal of the legislation. Under this rule, we are 
not even

[[Page H3960]]

allowed to discuss our proposals to ensure equal representation on this 
committee. We are not allowed to discuss our proposal to pay for the 
proceedings under this bill with a bipartisan bill that passed the 
Senate with more than two-thirds.
  This is a closed process that, frankly, Mr. Speaker, risks losing the 
faith of the American people in the outcome of this process. I fear, 
Mr. Speaker, that whatever the outcome of this process, if it moves 
forward, will fall on deaf ears of the American people because they 
will know that there was not an institutional commitment to being 
objective, there was not an effort to reach out in a bipartisan manner 
to find the truth, there was not a bipartisan effort to even pay for 
the costs of this investigation or this bill or contain or estimate 
those costs in any way.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so we can get this process right. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the 
underlying resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is an old saying that the closer to the target you get, the 
more flak comes up. While that is probably a naval or an Air Force term 
whereby pilots who are on their duty know when they are getting close 
to the real target. Mr. Speaker, we are getting closer to the real 
target.
  The facts of the case are really pretty simple. There is no gag order 
involved here. We spoke last night and yesterday in a very open, 
probably several-hour meeting on original jurisdiction at the Rules 
Committee. I was very open with the members of the committee. I told 
them, which has not been expressed today, that the last day of the 
113th Congress this investigation, if it is still going on, would have 
to be reauthorized by the next Congress. It is not like there is a 
never-ending date. As a matter of fact, we say in the original 
jurisdiction that 30 days after the completion of their report this 
select committee would go away.
  Secondly, we spoke very openly about not having new money available, 
but rather the money that was originally given to the House of 
Representatives for the purposes of running the House. The Speaker of 
the House would have to make sure that this committee operates within 
what we had originally asked for. There are not unlimited amounts of 
money. And to suggest as has been done on the floor, up to $200 million 
to run this investigation, that simply would not be truthful.
  Mr. Speaker, the closer to the target we have gotten, we have found 
that the Obama administration is trying to do everything they can to 
keep the United States House of Representatives and the committees from 
doing their job to try and misdirect us, to try and trick us, to try 
and fool us, to try and redact information that did not fall under a 
national security title but rather was to politically save them from 
what might be an embarrassment.
  What are some of those embarrassments? Well, some of the 
embarrassments would be: Why didn't the State Department understand on 
September 11 of any year why you probably do not conduct official 
operations, especially in a dangerous area? That might be one question.
  Another question might be: Who is it that said no? We have heard that 
there are serious flaws in the State Department. We already knew that. 
The former Secretary of State has numerous investigations that have 
revealed inadequacy all the way to the top of the State Department when 
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

  But what we are about here is to get to the bottom of it, to 
effectively get this done, to report to the American people, and they, 
Mr. Speaker, will see exactly why this was done, because the oversight 
responsibilities of the House of Representatives were done at the 
highest levels of this House. And by the way, we will read the bills 
before we pass them, we will understand the facts of the case and be 
able to explain them, and, more importantly, the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives will be in support of the American people knowing 
the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing the Rules Committee to bring 
forth its rule today to talk about this important, not just 
intelligence operation and national security and State Department and 
military operations, but to be able to say that the confidence that the 
American people have in the brave men and women who represent America--
that we will never leave them on the battlefield alone in hours of 
firefights without a backup position of knowing that the next sound you 
hear will be the United States Navy or the United States Air Force 
coming to aid the men and women who are in harm's way. That is the 
bottom line to this: an apology, not just stating a mismanagement, 
based upon the facts of the case.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution 
and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation. I believe what we are doing 
today is an honorable day for the American people, and I am proud to be 
here as an American, as a Member of Congress, saying we will get to the 
bottom of this, it will be done quickly, and it will be done 
efficiently, and the American people can then make their decisions and 
us move on, knowing that we will support the men and women who wear the 
uniform.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 575 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       Strike ``except'' and all that follows and insert the 
     following:
       ``except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; and (2) the amendment specified in 
     section 2 of this resolution if offered by Representative 
     Slaughter of New York or a designee, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 30 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.''
       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section is 
     as follow:

       Page 1, lines 9 and 10, strike ``after consultation with'' 
     and insert ``on the recommendation of''.
       Page 4, strike lines 15 and 16 and redesignate accordingly.
       Page 4, line 22, after ``Select Committee'', insert ``, 
     including one of the members who was appointed to the Select 
     Committee after consultation with the minority leader under 
     section 2(a),''
       Page 5, line 3, strike ``chair of the''.
       Page 5, line 7, before the period, insert ``, only upon an 
     affirmative vote of the majority of its members or with the 
     concurrence of the ranking minority member''.
        Page 5, lines 8 and 9, strike ``upon consultation with'' 
     and insert ``with the concurrence of''.
       Page 5, line 16, before the period, insert ``, and shall be 
     taken only upon concurrence of the ranking minority member''.
       Page 5, line 18, strike ``after consultation with'' and 
     insert ``with the concurrence of''.
       Page 6, after line 3, add the following new subsections:
       (d) All Members of the Select Committee shall have 
     equitable and timely access to all evidence and other 
     material received by the Select Committee.
       (e) The Select Committee shall adopt written procedures 
     governing how documents and other information may be 
     obtained, used, or released by the committee or any members 
     or staff of the committee.
       Page 7, after line 11, add the following new subsections:
       (d) The chair and ranking minority member of the Select 
     Committee shall receive equal allotments of resources for the 
     expenses and staff necessary to carry out this resolution.
       (e) A complete report of the expenditures of the Select 
     Committee shall be made available to the public on a monthly 
     basis.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the

[[Page H3961]]

     opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was 
     entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-
     Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, 
     the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked 
     the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled 
     to the first recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________